Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 December.

TRADE

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for the year 1983 and for each month during 1983.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farm Expenditure

Sir David Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of farm expenditure is attributable to rates paid on domestic hereditaments on farms.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): The estimated rates attributable to farm businesses represented one quarter of 1 per cent. of farm expenditure in 1981.

Sir David Price: What would be the effect on farm incomes, and ultimately on food prices, if the ill-considered proposal of the Select Committee on the Environment to rate agricultural buildings and the even more ill-considered proposal of NALGO to rate agricultural land were brought into effect?

Mr. Walker: There would obviously be an impact on prices, and farm incomes would be reduced. There would also be a substantial increase in the bureaucracy required. That is why the Government will have nothing to do with agricultural re-rating.

Mr. Buchan: Conservative Members are so predictable that I presume that the question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was really directed at the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food. I wish to make it clear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is here to ask questions, not to answer them.

Mr. Buchan: I believed it to be an implied question, Mr. Speaker.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Party's position, which is being criticised at the moment, is that the cost to a local community of the loss of potential rating power should be borne not by the local community but by the community as a whole and therefore should be charged by the local authority and the amount assessed in the annual assessment of farming costs, thus adding it to the equation in that way?

Mr. Walker: If the Labour Party wishes to go through that process, it is welcome to do so. It would not be popular with the local community, local farmers, British agriculture, or anybody else.

Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to change the rating system would be wise, but unfortunate and unwise for the consumer? Will he confirm that the Labour Party's policy is to rate agricultural buildings?

Mr. Walker: I cannot be responsible for the Labour Party's policy, which, in fairness to the Labour Party. it must be said varies every few months. The Conservative Party will have nothing to do with the re-rating of agricultural land.

Mr. Cryer: Reference has been made to a Select Committee of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman read a book by his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), which points out that farmers have received a considerable amount of public expenditure in the form of subsidies? Since that is the view of Members from both sides of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that farmers should make a contribution by paying rates on agricultural buildings?

Mr. Walker: I disagree with the premise and argument of my hon. Friend's book. The argument about world prices, irrespective of the volume of purchase, is incorrect. I notice that support for the book has come from elements in the Tory press and the Ulster Unionist Party with who my hon. Friend would not normally agree.
It is based on a distinct, passionate anti-European feeling. I personally applaud an industry which currently has an inflation rate on food prices as low as 4·9 per cent., where increases in farm gate prices have been lower than increases in food prices and retail prices, and where this year our balance of payments will be £1,700 million better than if we did not have such a successful industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent five minutes on question No. 1. We shall have to move more quickly.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any recent discussions with his European Economic Community counterparts on the prospects of reinforcing the threshold quota system for the main common agricultural policy products.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. The application of the guarantee threshold arrangements next year will be a matter for discussion in the context of the 1983 agricultural price fixing.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend feel confident that we can build on what is decided and create a system of almost automatic price reductions for items that are in chronic and recurring surplus? Is this not a means of reassuring those whose opinion, but for this issue, would not necessarily be anti-EEC?

Mr. Walker: Yes. There are areas where the main element, based on calculations of current income yields from production and improvements in productivity in Europe, should be price stability. That is why the Government have consistently pursued policies that have produced far more stable prices in Europe and Britain than those that prevailed under our predecessors. We shall continue that process in the forthcoming price-fixing.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will emphasise the need for a reduction in the quota intervention price rather than an increase in the co-responsibility levy, which would be less favourable to the British producer?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It makes more sense to keep the price low and to encourage consumption than to put up the price and have a co-responsibility levy, which discourages consumption.

Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to strengthen the protective mechanisms of the CAP in regard to threshold prices in the forthcoming price negotiations? Is he aware that these mechanisms almost disrupted and sabotaged the recent GATT negotiations?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman refers to the damage caused to the GATT negotiations. The United States provides substantial public funds for agricultural production. The system of most of the Western world, based on the desire to ensure stability of food supplies, is an important factor. I prefer to live in Western Europe with its system of stability and adequacy of food supplies than in Eastern Europe with its inadequacy of food supplies.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent high barley crop has caused the Community to limit the import from third countries of all high-starch products? Is he aware that this has the unfortunate side effect of limiting imports of yams from the West Indies, which will have an adverse effect in the new year, if licences are revoked, on the trade that supplies ethnic minorities in this country?

Mr. Walker: I shall investigate the matter. Yams are subject to the import quota arrangements introduced earlier this year for manioc. Imports within the quota attract a 6 per cent. ad valorem duty. Once the quota is exhausted, all products are liable to the full barley levy. I shall look into any problems that my hon. Friend brings to my attention.

Lyons Maid Factory

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations from the edible oil industry on Merseyside concerning the Lyons Maid factory.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): No, Sir.

Mr. Parry: I thank the Minister for his reply. The closure of the Lyons Maid factory will represent a reduction of only 2,000 tonnes of edible oil a year on Merseyside, but is the Minister aware that there will be further job losses in an area that can ill afford them? Will he give a clear assurance that the Government intend to defend the edible oil industry against any EC regulations that could bring about more unemployment?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I share the hon. Gentlman's concern about the closure of this factory. It is a wholly commercial decision by the company concerned. On Merseyside overall it should not have any dramatic effect. The amount of edible oil involved is 500 tonnes a year—not all of it from Merseyside—compared with a total production of over 200,000 tonnes. It is not all that significant. However, any loss of jobs is significant.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a Community tax on the import of such oils from outside the Community. This was suggested a year ago. We strongly opposed it then and shall do so again if it is proposed in future.

Foreign Fishing Vessels

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that foreign fishing vessels are being registered as United Kingdom vessels for the purpose of fishing in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am seriously concerned that some 60 ex-foreign, mainly Spanish, vessels have now registered under the British flag and are fishing in United Kingdom and Commmunity waters. Together with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade I am urgently examining ways of eding this apparent evasion of Community restrictions on third country vessels.

Mr. Hicks: Is it envisaged that United Kingdom law will be amended in the near future to prevent this real and growing threat to our fishermen, especially in the South-West? Alternatively, is the possibility of achieving a quick and effective solution more likely to follow an approach to the Commission with a view to the introduction of a regulation aimed at controlling and preventing the development of this practice?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not reject any opportunity to try to deal with the matter.
In regard to primary legislation, the issue is extremely complicated. There is no simple solution. The basic legislation is embodied in the initial Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which has implications far beyond fishing vessels.
Administratively, we have had success in a number of directions. Together with the Commission in Brussels, we are considering other ways which I hope will prove more effective in the shorter term. I also have under consideration one or two other measures.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give an assurance that none of the £15 million of Government aid will go to any of those 60 vessels?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. I am delighted to give that assurance. My right hon. Friend made it clear yesterday that the Government are excluding from the temporary aid scheme those vessels which do not meet the requirement that 75 per cent. of the crew are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 27 October. This is one example of how, administratively, we are making sure that the abuse is contained.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main difficulty in amending the 1894 Act is that


the Spanish are largely using the proper system for registering British vessels? Is not the quickest way of achieving reform to bring in a regulation within the EEC?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has greater legal knowledge than I. There is no doubt that the fundamental redrawing of the legislation presents certain difficulties, especially in the short term. We shall therefore use every other means available to us. There should be some possibility of taking action, particularly through secondary legislation.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition are prepared to expedite either fundamental legal change or any statutory instrument that may be required?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I sense that throughout the House there is support for the action taken by the Government and for any other action that we may consider necessary.

Cattle and Sheep

Mr. Myles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to alter certification arrangements for live cattle and sheep.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that he has no plans at present to certify all fat animals at point of slaughter?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Butter

Mr Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in butter; and how this compares with the position in 1979.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Production of butter represented 57 per cent. of total new supplies in 1980, which is the most recent year for which complete information is available. In 1979 it was 47 per cent.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this increasing self-sufficiency in butter is a tribute to the British farming industry? Is he satisfied that British dairy farmers are being adequately rewarded for this improvement?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The figures show that dairy farmers—through their efficiency, good management and for other reasons—have increased production. I believe that they are being sufficiently rewarded. It is significant that, over the past year, partly for climatic reasons, there has been a further increase in production. The contribution made by dairy farmers is creditable.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Has the Minister any plans to persuade his counterparts in Europe to sell our butter surpluses to the Third world, not to the Russians?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are provisions under the food aid programme for aid to be given. In that general programme the United Kingdom plays its part.

Mr. Jay: Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of Common Market membership is that the United

Kingdom taxpayer is again having to subsidise exports of butter to the Soviet Union at about one-third of the price that we pay for it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman also welcomes the fact that the United Kingdom consumer already receives a subsidy throughout the year and that over the Christmas period there will be an even greater subsidy.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still substantial room for enhancement in butter self-sufficiency by the United Kingdom dairy industry? Will he apply the same constructive approach to the marketing of butter as he has towards other commodities?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Although we have improved our self-sufficiency in butter, we are not completely self-sufficient, but the dairy industry is also a considerable exporter. It says a great deal for some of the firms involved, not least the Milk Marketing Board, that we have had success in exporting not only outside the Community but into the Community.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) about the general export of surplus butter? Will he confirm that during the period when the sale of butter from the EC was banned by a decision of Ministers the Commission, over a four-year period, continued to sell food, including butter, to Eastern Europe? If so, will the Minister deplore it?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the behest of the British Government, the Commission, under the procedures of its management committee—which are the same as they were when the Labour Government were in office—suspended sales for a period. It is difficult to know the eventual destination of some exports, because they can be traded to other countries. That may have happened in recent years. It certainly happened under the Labour Government.

Chrysanthemums

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has had about the importation of Dutch chrysanthemums infected with chrysanthemum white rust fungus; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have received representations from the National Farmers Union and individual growers. As I have previously made clear, I have decided to allow the new Dutch control measures an opportunity to prove themselves, but if they are not effective I shall impose a ban immediately.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that eradication is a tenable policy only if all loopholes are closed, and that the Dutch plant growers have a disastrous track record?

Mr. Walker: I am aware that the only way to eradicate the disease is to prevent any imports which cause its spread. The Dutch Government are fully aware of this. I have informed them in writing that if there are any further examples of white rust being imported from Holland, an immediate ban will take place.

Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger of the spread of this disease to our own plants by lorries that have carried infected blooms subsequently visiting nurseries owned by our growers? In those circumstances, why is he taking a risk by allowing imports to continue? We know that under the present system blooms infected with white rust are able to enter this country.

Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such imports must be prevented and stopped. However, the Dutch Government have put in a new system of surveillance which they claim will prevent any further exports to this country containing white rust. If that claim proves to be false and there is another import of white rust, I shall put an immediate ban on all imports.

Mr. John Wells: The House welcomes my right hon. Friend's use of the word "immediate", but there is immediate and immediate. How quickly from the import of dirty material is "immediate"?

Mr. Walker: Immediate.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Has the Minister received evidence that on 3 November a consignment was imported from Holland to Covent Garden, some of which was sent to Hampshire and then to Gateshead, and that on 9 November 120 badly infected boxes were intercepted? How immediate is that immediacy?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be clear that the system agreed by the Dutch has only recently been introduced. The consignment that he mentions, which was known to me, was not subject to the new system of inspection. The Dutch Government have been informed that their new system will be tested and that, if there are any examples of white rust, there will be an immediate ban.

Green Pound

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present value of the green pound.

Mr. Peter Walker: The present value of the green pound is 1·61641 European currency units.

Mr. Miller: In view of the considerable benefits to the country from the improvement of the balance of trade in agricultural products, which affects all in the agriculture industry at a time of considerable difficulty and lack of profitability—except perhaps recently to those in the grain sector—will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no change in the green pound?

Mr. Walker: We are correct to pursue our green pound policy, which is in the interests of our balance of payments and of British agriculture. If the Labour Party's proposals to devalue the currency by 30 per cent. were implemented there would be negative MCAs of 33 per cent., which would be pretty destructive of British agriculture.

Mr. Maclennan: Now that the transition of Community prices has been completed, and as inflation rates are somewhat more stable, do the Government agree that the time has come—at least from the agricultural point of view—to enter the European monetary system and thus assist farmers who are nervous about the pressure that will be put on this Government, and no doubt future Governments, about the green pound?

Mr. Walker: That matter should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to me.
With regard to the general operation of the green pound and the MCA system, I point out that under the Labour Government, when there were negative MCAs virtually the whole time, the cost of food went up by about 122 per cent. During the period of this Government, when there have been positive MCAs most of the time, the cost of food has gone up by 32 per cent.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recent increase in the volume of exports is largely due to the fact that the MCAs are positive and that if there were substantial devaluation of the type recommended by the Opposition it would be wholly destructive to the pigmeat industry?

Mr. Walker: Such a policy would certainly do great damage to the pigmeat industry. In 1978, the last calendar year of the Labour Government, imports were increasing and exports were decreasing. Under this Government, imports are decreasing and exports are increasing.

Mr. Newens: Before the right hon. Gentleman decides to attack devaluation or anything of this type, will he recognise the great damage that has been done to agriculture and many other sectors of our economy by the very high interest rates that have been necessary to maintain the pound at existing parities?

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman rejoices in the fact that interest rates have come down so much over the past year. I am sure that if he looks at the performance of British agriculture in terms of production, export, import saving and everything else he will know what a creditable and superb record it is.

Fishing Fleet

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on his proposed aid to the Hull deep sea fishing fleet.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The form of the special £15 million aid is set out in a statutory instrument which was laid before the House yesterday.

Mr. McNamara: I am well aware of that, but that is not an answer to my question. I asked what specific aid the Government are to give to the whole deep sea fleet. What part of the temporary life belt that has been thrown to the fleet will go to Hull and the deep sea fleet generally? When will the right hon. Gentleman announce measures to rebuild the deep sea fleet to ensure that we have adequate catches from third country waters and Hull can be a viable port again?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot say how much aid will go to Hull. It depends on the number of applications that are received from Hull and how many of those applications are eligible and approved. I expect that about £800,000 is likely to go to Hull, judging by the way in which the money has been distributed in previous schemes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that under the last three schemes, including this one, about £3·6 million has gone to Hull. We have already entered into informal discussions with the industry on future restructuring. We hope to have more formal discussions shortly on the future structure of the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

Sir Patrick Wall: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Humberside distant water fleet has been compensated for its loss of third country fishing grounds? If not, will my right hon. Friend give that matter further consideration?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, the loss of third country waters was a considerable factor in the European negotiations and a positive element in the calculation of the quotas. Therefore, that was a real part of the negotiations. In the interim, various arrangements for fishing—for example, sectoral quotas, which the freezer sector of the British fleet alone has enjoyed, and access to the herring fishery, which that sector of the fleet did not have previously—show that we have not ignored the needs of the distant water fleet, particularly the Hull fleet.

Mr. James Johnson: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are kept well informed of the battle that we in Hull, from the Lord Mayor downwards, are putting up to salvage our deep sea fleet, will the Minister say something about our share of decent quotas in Arctic waters? What are the possibilities of our ships fishing in Antarctic waters in the South Atlantic? Will the Minister say something about the work that he is doing to save the Humber research laboratory in my constituency? All those things are important, as is aid for the consortium and co-operative of the city council and the workers, dockers and others in the Hull Landing Company on the dock.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was glad to have the opportunity yesterday to meet representatives of the industry from Hull. We had full and useful discussions with them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the loss of distant water opportunities seriously affected Hull and other deep water ports. I am sure he will welcome the fact that, in the final stages of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we negotiated an extra 3,000 tonnes of Greenland cod above the original offer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It shows our concern for his section of the industry.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister verify that the industry, both deep sea and near water, urgently needs a restructuring plan and aid? Vessels are earning enough money to keep going, but not to pay off debts or to finance new investment. There is an urgent need to ease the burden of dock charges on the industry so that British ports can compete for landings on equal terms with Continental ports.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the problems of the fishing industry. One of the big problems of long-term structural planning is knowing precisely what the fishing opportunities will be. Once we have established what they will be, both in our waters and in third country waters, we can sensibly plan the structure of the fleet. Therefore, if as we hope, we have a common fisheries policy within sight, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support.

Food Prices

Mr. Jay: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the percentage increases in

United Kingdom retail food prices in the most recent five-year period; and in the periods 31 January 1968 to 31 December 1972 and 31 January 1973 to 31 December 1977, respectively.

Mr. Peter Walker: The increases were as follows:



Per cent.


January 1968-January 1973
49


January 1973-January 1978
136


October 1977-October 1982
54


The right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that over the past two years the increase has been only 14·3 per cent., and over the past year only 4·9 per cent.

Mr. Jay: Do not those figures clearly show that the exceptionally steep rise in food prices in the four years after 1972 was due to the adoption of the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Walker: Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, as he should recall, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my predecessor, announced a few months before the election that only 10 per cent. of the 100 per cent. rise in prices during the period of the Labour Government was due to the Common Market.

Mr. Latham: Following that massive own goal by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), will my right hon. Friend remind the House that in 1974 and 1975 the Labour Government wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on completely unselective and useless food subsidies?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Altogether, that Government's record was pretty disastrous.

Farming Industry (Bank Overdrafts)

Mr. Watson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any recent information concerning the level of bank overdrafts incurred by the farming industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: The latest information relates to mid-August 1982, when total bank advances outstanding to agriculture and forestry in the United Kingdom were about £4¼ billion. Survey data show that borrowing amounts on average to no more than one-tenth of total assets per farm in England and Wales.

Mr. Watson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the considerable increases in productivity achieved by British farmers over the past five years have not happened out of thin air, but have been incurred at the expense of a trebled level of bank borrowing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase this year in farm incomes is no more than is necessary to repay a small portion of those debts?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I am pleased to say that one of the results of the increase in farm incomes this year is that there are signs of considerable increases in investment in British agriculture, which will benefit the construction and machinery industries, which are very much in need of those orders.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that all the political parties in the House are in


favour of setting up a land bank to help young entrants. In view of the opinions expressed by people of all political shades, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward proposals to set up such a land bank?

Mr. Walker: That is not directly connected with the question, but there are plenty of facilities, including those of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which can be of considerable assistance to people—including young people—who wish to inject capital into British agriculture.

Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the cost to the agricultural producer of producing extra food for the consumer has been considerable? Will he comment on the absurd and stupid story in the Daily Mail the other day, by Andrew Alexander, condemning the whole set-up of British agriculture and what it was doing for British consumers?

Mr. Walker: I disagree with many articles in newspapers, but I suppose that I disagreed with that article more than most. I can only comment that on the one occasion when Mr. Alexander started to practise politics instead of preaching it he lost his deposit.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister might pay a little more attention to the chairman of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Does he agree with him and his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that the British farmer is now receiving over 60 per cent. of his income from direct Government aid in one form or another? Is he aware that the level of indebtedness has trebled? Is that not an indictment of the common agricultural policy, which he has been trying to defend? Does that not mean that certain sections have done extremely well, but that most farmers have done badly under the Minister's administration and the CAP?

Mr. Walker: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman bringing forward proposals that will improve substantially the incomes of British farmers. We shall monitor the cost, because the last costs that the hon. Gentleman suggested were about £2 billion, added to which he wants to nationalise land, to have negative MCAs of 33 per cent. and to re-rate British agricultural land. That combination would be a disaster.

Potatoes

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what degree the United Kingdom is likely to be self-sufficient for ware potatoes in the current crop year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We expect that supply and demand will be broadly in balance this season.

Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that the support arrangements for the home potato industry will ensure self-sufficiency, thereby retaining the confidence of potato producers? Will he also assure the House that greater steps will be taken by the Potato Marketing Board to assist farmers to market their potato crops in a better way than they have in the past few years, so that we do not have the massive potato imports that we sometimes have at the end of the season?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Potato Marketing Board, particularly with its contract scheme, has been successful

in evening out some of the market problems. I hope that we can continue to be self-sufficient in potatoes, although that crop is perhaps more subject than others to changes in the weather and other conditions.
My hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that the current price is above the guaranteed price. However, we must look ahead-and I am delighted that both the National Farmers Union and the Potato Marketing Board have prepared proposals. I have had preliminary discussions with them and I look forward to carrying those discussions further.

Mr. Freud: As the Potato Marketing Board is grower-financed, and therefore grower-oriented, does the Minister agree that it has a vested interest in keeping up the price of potatoes? Might it not be more helpful to have a Potato Marketing Board which collates correct and unbiased information, as does the United States Department of Agriculture?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the Potato Marketing Board fails to fulfil its statutory responsibilities it is subject to questioning and control. In recent years the board has shown proper concern for outlets for potatoes other than those going direct for human consumption, such as through potato processors. It has also shown particular concern for the consumer. I encourage the board to follow that policy.

Southall Horse Market

Mr. Greenway: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with conditions at Southall horse market; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: We have been monitoring all horse markets following the introduction in 1979 of the code of practice and we are writing to markets where breaches of the code have been noted. My officials have written today to the operators of Southall market. I stand ready to take further action, including the introduction of legislation, if the necessary improvements are not made quickly at the poorest markets, including Southall.

Mr. Greenway: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and thank him for what he has done to implement the 1979 code of practice. However, in view of the suffering of many animals at Southall and other horse markets, will he consider the introduction in any future legislation of powers to close horse markets where grave abuses continue?

Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend has taken an immense interest in this topic. He has informed me constantly of the situation at Southall. I am sure that he would be quick to point out that there are perfectly good marketing practices there, with plenty of people dealing fairly and reasonably with the animals. Alas, there are also places where animals suffer hardship. Therefore, I repeat the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend that, if necessary, legislation will be introduced to ensure that the code of practice is enforced.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy; and to what time scale he is working.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Government have already made good progress in improving the operation of the common agricultural policy. The agricultural share of the Community budget has dropped from 80 per cent. when we took office to around 60 per cent. this year. We are determined to keep up our efforts for as long as necessary.

Mr. Proctor: Is it not fair to say that the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy is pure illusion?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend should reflect upon the fact that over the past year British food prices have increased by less than 5 per cent., our exports have increased by £600 million in the past four years and our imports are £1,000 million down. He should recognise that Britain is now obtaining considerable benefit from the changes that we have achieved in the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of seeking any fundamental reforms in the common agricultural policy which would reduce the price of commodities to the British housewife?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that under the Labour Government food prices went up by 122 per cent. Under this Government they have gone up by only 32 per cent. as a result of our handling of the common agricultural policy. The view of the Minister of Agriculture in that Labour Government was that the majority of price increases were due to factors outside the Common Market. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reflects carefully on that.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in any reshaping or adjustment of the common agricultural policy he will not lose sight of the importance of the continuity of food supplies? That has gone largely unremarked during our membership of the Community, but it is valuable to the consumer.

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. In the 1930s we made the mistake of relying on world markets, and great sections of British agriculture and horticulture were destroyed. After the outbreak of war we recognised the terrible failure of that policy. I am pleased to say that under all post-war Governments adequate food supplies have been ensured, and under this Government our self-sufficiency in the goods that we can produce has increased from 67 to 75 per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Duffy: Has the Prime Minister noticed that Britain now imports more manufactured goods than it exports? If she thinks that her policy of industrial anorexia is not contributing to that deindustrialisation and to today's horrifying unemployment figures, how does she explain that the crucial factor in this week's savage job cuts in the

Sheffield steel industry was not her pet alibi of poor quality, productivity or delivery, but a lack of domestic demand, notably in engineering steel?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake in his reference to imports in manufactured goods being more than exports. The monthly figures give imports as cost, insurance and freight, and they give exports as free on board. If one excludes cost, insurance and freight—which come in invisibles—a proper comparison of imports with exports can be made, and if that is done the hon. Gentleman will find that what he said is not so. There is still a surplus of manufacturing exports over imports. The hon. Gentleman has made a common mistake.
The unemployment figures are out today, and unfortunately the underlying trend is upwards. However, there is a deep world recession, which is affecting other countries in Europe and, of course, our industrial competitors further afield.
The hon. Gentleman implied that we need not take any notice of quality and productivity. Of course we must want quality—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman suggested that he did not want another homily on quality and productivity, but both are vital. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak about demand. I point out once again that the import penetration of cars is above 55 per cent. If those cars were made here, we should have the steel trade here. That also applies to many machine tools. The problem is not a shortage of demand, but the fact that people choose to buy foreign goods instead of those produced here.

Sir Paul Bryan: As the Government are about to come to a decision on overseas students' fees, will my right hon. Friend find time today to press the appropiate Ministers to accept the offer of the Hong Kong Government to share with this Government the cost of giving home student status to Hong Kong students?

The Prime Minister: I understand that a scheme has been proposed by the Hong Kong Government, the cost of which would be shared fifty-fifty with this Government, and we are considering it.

Dr. Owen: In view of today's NATO Defence Ministers meeting, the considerable public disquiet about cruise missiles and the regrettable position that might arise in December next year if there is no progress at the INF and START talks, will the Prime Minister assure the House that if it were necessary to deploy cruise missiles a system would be adopted similar to that adopted for the Thor missiles, whereby they could never be fired without the physical agreement of representatives of the British Government? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that no decision will be taken in December 1983 on their deployment without a debate in the House?

The Prime Minister: We are already pledged to honour the NATO commitment, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would wish us to go back on that. He wishes that there were no need to have cruise missiles stationed here. There would indeed be no such need if the Russians dismantled their SS20 systems. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that as much as we do. Should cruise missiles be stationed here—they will have to be unless the SS20 systems are taken down—the same rules will apply to them as have governed American nuclear weapons here for many years.

Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest economic proposals of the Labour Party are unattainable and irresponsible? Does she agree also that their only beneficial side effect is further to undermine the credibility of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: I believe that they are totally irresponsible and dangerous. They would lead to a rapid return of inflation, and that would be followed, once again, by increasing unemployment.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the deep resentment that is felt in the West Midlands at the flippant reply given last week by the Secretary of State for Employment over the mounting job crisis in the region? Is she further aware that a reply given to me shows that the highest rate of unemployment before May 1979 was 6½ per cent.? It is now 16½ per cent., and continuing to rise. Is the right hon. Lady proud of the fact that under her Administration the centre of manufacturing and engineering in this country has been brought to such a devastated state?

The Prime Minister: What I said in answer to the first question is directly relevant to what the hon. Gentleman asks. If there had not been import penetration, or, to put it another way, if our car industry had been more competitive and less strike-ridden and produced goods and cars that were saleable to ordinary people in this country as well as overseas, the West Midlands would be much more prosperous than it is now. Incidentally, in that connection, I congratulate Jaguar on the excellent work that it is doing.

Mr. Tony Speller: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the past 30 years the growth of the hotel and catering industry has provided many permanent jobs for young and unskilled workers? Does it not follow that we would be well advised to apply our grants and aid to a growing service industry rather than give them to the old, outdated and outmoded industries that claim too large a percentage of our national wealth?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that tourism and the hotel and catering industry are extremely important to our economy, and that in future more jobs will come from services. This year the Government spent about £56 million on tourism. We are having a review to see whether that money is being best applied, how best the Government can help tourism and the hotel and catering industry, whether there is too much bureaucracy in handing out that money, and whether we have the best structure for promoting tourism. We are anxious to do all that, because my hon. Friend is right to say that many jobs depend upon it.

Mr. David Steel: Why does the Prime Minister continue to ascribe the appalling unemployment figures to the effects of the world recession, when world markets grew last year by 5 per cent. and our manufacturing exports shrank by 4 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: That is because the greater part of the problems are attributable to the world recession. In

addition, there are further problems that are specific to this country—the overmanning and restrictive practices throughout the years and the habit and practice of overpaying ourselves, or paying ourselves nearly twice as much for producing the same amount, whereas our competitors' pay and output are much more nearly hand-in-hand. Those facts have made the recession deeper here than in a number of other countries.

Mr. Alan Clark: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report, published yesterday, of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in which, from its unique position of overseeing sentencing policy throughout the kingdom, it is unanimous in condemning excessive leniency in sentencing for crimes of violence? Does she agree that that supplies official confirmatiomn of an anxiety that is widely felt by ordinary people? Judicial and Executive functions cannot overlap, but does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate to draw that report to the attention of the Lord Chancellor?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the report, although I am not completely au fait with it. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will have seen it and read it in full. I share my hon. Friend's concern about remarks in the report, which I believe to be correct, that in certain cases sentences are nothing like severe enough. I share the view of Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, who said that medium or long-term custodial sentences were appropriate for most robberies and most offences involving serious violence.

Mr. Foot: Has the Cabinet had before it today not only the appalling unemployment figures but the evidence of the sheer grinding increase in real poverty? Did she study, for example, the figures that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), which showed that the number of people living on supplementary benefit in this country had increased by nearly 1 million during the past three years? Does she blame all that on someone else?

The Prime Minister: The number of people on supplementary benefit has gone up as the threshold for supplementary benefit has risen over the years. [Interruption.] Of course it has. The number of people on supplementary benefit went up under Labour Governments as well. The number has increased from the early years as the level of poverty has been redefined by successive Governments—[Interruption.]—and therefore more people have qualified for supplementary benefit. Having been a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for many years, I am very well aware of that. Added to that, there is the extra burden on those who are unemployed. The way to get unemployment down is to get industry more competitive—[Interruption.]—but unfortunately the Opposition never understand the truth. The way to get unemployment down is to get industry more competitive and its products better designed, so that those who earn their living in this country will buy the products produced here.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady aware that this is a question, not of the redefinition of poverty, but of its intensification? Is she not aware that in the past three years the number of children in families living on supplementary benefit has gone up to nearly 1 million and that the figure has more than doubled during the three years for which she has been responsible? Does she have no shame about these matters?

The Prime Minister: As I said, the numbers have gone up. One of the reasons is increasing unemployment. I have said what I think is the best way to get that down. The supplementary benefit scheme means that those who are unfortunately without work are catered for.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Price: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today looking at reports that the European Commission has consistently been defying the Council of Ministers by selling butter to the Soviet Union? That is outside its remit. Is she aware that that process has been going on for some time? Indeed, it happened when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), was in charge of the Commission. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the fact

that the right hon. Gentleman seemed less than assiduous at his Prayers today shows that he could not organise a harvest festival in a vineyard?

The Prime Minister: I heard the allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know whether it is true. The matter is being looked into. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just told me that butter sales to Russia reached their peak during the last four months of the Labour Government.

Mr. Ward: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study reports in the newspapers that the Inner London Education Authority is proposing to withdraw grant from the Scout movement because Major General Walsh, the Chief Scout, wants to increase discipline, self-respect and hygiene in that movement?

The Prime Minister: Almost all hon. Members would say that the Scout movement is excellent and that Major General Walsh is a superb leader.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the failure to implement the findings of the Black report.
Motion on the Customs Duties (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) Order 1968 (Amendment) Order.
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill.
Motion on EEC Document No. 10701/82 on fish guide prices for 1983.
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Opposition day (3rd Allotted Day). Debate on an Opposition motion on the economic slump and its impact on women.
Motions on EEC documents Nos. 9415/82 and 9449/82 on foot and mouth and swine vesicular diseases.
THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Surcharge Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order.
FRIDAY IO DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY I3 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock. Afterwards, remaining stages of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
[Fish Guide Prices for 1983, Document No. 10701/82
See 2nd Report of European Legislation Committee, Session 1982–83, HC 34-ii, para 1.
Measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease and swine vesicular disease, Documents Nos. 9415/82 and 9449/82
See 30th Report of European Legislation Committee, Session 1981–82, HC 21-xxx, para. 3 and 4]

Mr. Foot: I have asked the right hon. Gentleman for a debate on fisheries for several weeks. May we have an assurance that time for such a debate will be provided before the Government come to any conclusions on the matter? May we have an assurance that the House will be given a chance to advance its views?
The Secretary of State for Employment announced the new training initiatives some weeks ago. As they will cost a considerable amount of money and raise many controversial issues, I hope that the Government will provide time for a debate on the subject.
Security is another matter on which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to provide time for a debate. We should like to proceed with such a debate.
The Prime Minister is going to a summit meeting in Copenhagen in the next few days. No doubt she will report to the House next week. Will she also report how discussions on MX missile development and the United States' departure on the matter may take place? I hope that she will raise that subject with some of her colleagues in Europe. The Opposition would like such a report as, with many commentators in the United States and elsewhere, we regard it as a most serious development in the nuclear

arms race. It is essential that Britain's views should be stated clearly. As the right hon. Lady has so far said nothing on the subject, we hope that she will report to the House on the matter.
I am sorry to take a little time, but my next point concerns a change that the Government have introduced. I refer not so much to the need for a statement as to the way in which the House is now to be informed about unemployment figures by the Secretary of State for Employment. The new method is not satisfactory. If the Government wish to introduce such a change, surely the matter should have been discussed with the official Opposition and other parties. The presentation of such figures should have been discussed with the whole House. Therefore, the Leader of the House has an obligation, not only to his own party but to other honourable Members.
We should like two types of figures to be presented to the House for the next 12 months. That would be much fairer from the point of view of the country and the Government. If the Government have nothing to hide, the Leader of the House should say "Yes" to that proposition at once.

Mr. Biffen: I note all of the right hon. Gentleman's five points. Perhaps he will allow me to comment on them in reverse order.
With regard to the unemployment figures, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced to the House the basis of the change. He was subjected to many questions. No hon. Member can say that the Government have been less than candid with the House on the matter. It is a subject of some technical complexity that could commend itself to the appropriate Select Committee.
My right hon. Friend will make a statement next week, following the Copenhagen meeting of European Councillors. She will have heard the Leader of the Opposition's comments about the wider issues, including the MX missile. It is appropriate for me to point out that the EC is not a military organisation and that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are more related to a NATO gathering than to one in Copenhagen.
With regard to security, I understand that preliminary discussions have taken place through the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have made clear their view that there should be a debate on this important issue. Nevertheless, the time for such a debate is when the Security Commission reports on its investigations and all the issues that arise from the Prime case have been concluded.
I note the importance that the Leader of the Opposition attaches to the new training arrangements. I hope and believe that I shall be able to accommodate his anxieties on that point.
I recognise that I have made it clear that there should be a debate on fisheries. Although I have not been able to announce such a debate in the business for next week, I note the right hon. Gentleman's view that one should take place reasonably soon.

Mr. Foot: I hope that the reply of the Leader of the House about a debate on security does not mean that he will try to postpone it until we receive a further report. I understand that many hon. Members felt that we should have had that debate at an early stage.
The unemployment figures are not a matter of "technical complexity"; they are a matter of human


tragedy and the way in which the Government treat the House and the country. The figures and the way which they are presented are matters of great concern. If two types of statistics are available, the Government cannot fear their presentation. We suggest that two types of figures continue to be presented for a while. We can discuss how long. If the Government want to carry any confidence in the figures, the Leader of the House should say "Yes" to that proposition at once. I hope that he will not rush in now but that he will consult other members of the Government to see whether the country can be treated fairly with regard to the presentation of those figures.

Mr. Biffen: I am not by nature ever disposed to rush into anything on the question of next week's or indeed next month's business. The right hon. Gentleman's point was covered by the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Certainly, the statement was the subject of disagreement, but my right hon. Friend did not hold back from the House the difficulties involved in trying to issue duplicate sets of figures. Nevertheless, I shall of course refer the right hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend.
On security, the statement that I have already made was the product of considerable thought. I realise that the House generally is anxious that there should be a debate as soon as possible. I hope that that will concentrate the minds of those carrying out the inquiry.

Mr. David Steel: When will the data protection Bill be published? Can the Leader of the House assure us that the House will have rather longer between publication and Second Reading to study and consult on the matter than we have had on some recent Government Bills?

Mr. Biffen: My answer to the first part of the question is "Not next week, Sir". On the second point, I take on board the anxiety that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed and I hope that we shall be able to perform in such a way as to earn good marks from him.

Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week about the Thames barrage? Is he aware that workers on the site have expressed the wish that the opening, which will be a national occasion, should be carried out by Her Majesty the Queen rather than by some local worthy or politician as has been suggested in some quarters?

Mr. Biffen: As my own abode is in peril whenever the Thames rises beyond a certain point, my main anxiety is that the operation of the barrage should proceed with as little impediment as possible. I cannot guarantee to make a statement or to make any arrangements on this matter next week, although I will certainly look into the difficulties and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the debate on training be wide enough to cover the action of the Manpower Services Commission in giving a £600,000 advertising project to Saatchi and Saatchi for the community programme, with the perceptive slogan
The answer to unemployment is to give them a job"?
Does not that constitute party political propaganda, as such advertising is entirely unnecessary for the scheme?

Mr. Biffen: I do not know, but I am sure that however the motion is drafted the hon. Gentleman's formidable debating skill will enable him to make the speech that he has in mind.

Mr. Julian Amery: In view of next week's business, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement in the House of Commons about the increase in personnel and expenditure of the security forces in Northern Ireland rather than making statements to an assembly which, so far as I know, has no responsibility in any of these matters?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly pass that request to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: May I draw attention to the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations now reaching their conclusion and remind the right hon. Gentleman that 210,000 textile and clothing workers have lost their jobs under this Government? Will he ensure that a statement is made next week or, if not, that a full statement will be made to the House by the Ministers responsible so that the negotiations and their conclusion may be fully and properly discussed?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman and I will certainly convey his comments to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade, who I am sure will wish to keep the House fully informed of the course of debates on the multi-fibre arrangement.

Mr. Tom McNally: Does the Leader of the House recall that when his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) suggested a general debate on trade he replied that it could be subsumed in the foreign affairs debate? Is he aware that that is unrealistic and that there is great concern about textiles, steel and the future of GATT? Will he therefore consider again the possibility of a full scale debate on trade policy?

Mr. Biffen: I accept at once that this is a very important topic, but it does not feature in next week's business. Clearly negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement are very important in determining when it would be appropriate to hold a wider trade debate. All those factors must be taken into account.

Viscount Cranborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the inordinately increased scale of attrocities perpetrated by the Russian forces in Afghanistan in the past few months? In view of the outrage that should be felt by anyone in the Western world at those atrocities and the extraordinary lack of such comment in the Western press and media generally, is it not high time that the House showed its concern about the greatest humanly induced tragedy in the world today by holding an urgent debate on the subject?

Mr. Biffen: I am only too conscious of all the constraints on the amount of Government time available for debates of all kinds, including time for legislation. I should have thought, however, that many avenues were available to private Members to express the deep feelings that I know my hon. Friend shares, through Adjournment motions, early-day motions or other means.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on consumer


protection, especially the further implementation of the Consumer Credit Act, so that the public may be protected against doorstep sharks who are conning people into buying loft insulation, double glazing and other winter essentials by thoroughly unfair and undue pressure?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a matter which I know excites considerable feeling, but I see no prospect of providing Government time for such a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. David Atkinson: I do not wish to anticipate the statement about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, but may we have an assurance that the matter will be debated by the House before there is any question of ratification of the convention by this country?

Mr. Biffen: I must give a somewhat dead bat reply to that. I think that the House should first hear the statement and then consider the matter in the light of what follows.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the unemployment figures, as there is great anxiety that the Department of Employment seems to be massaging the figures? May we have both sets of figures, at least for a period, so that we may make comparisons? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, when it was proposed to introduce the tax and prices index as well as the retail prices index, both figures were given as the TPI rose higher than the RPI? Is he aware that it is generally believed that unemployment is now nearer 4 million and that our arguments for regional aid for our constituencies are weakened by the distorted figures now issued by the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I have already given a measured—perhaps too measured—response to the Leader of the Opposition on that. Having behaved in that respectful way towards him, I do not think that I can do other than repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: In relation to the introduction of Ten-Minute Bills, will my right hon. Friend consider limiting the length of time for which hon. Members may queue at the Public Bill Office, if only to avoid the heart-rending sight of Opposition Members sitting up all night to do so?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that that falls within my responsibilities. Sitting up all night, however, seems to be a way of life in this place.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May I endorse the request for a statement on the multi-fibre arrangement which, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is extremely important for textile constituencies?
May I also press the need for a debate on defence, as many people are bandying around figures about the number of missiles and it is time that we had a debate to show that NATO has a vast numerical superiority in every warhead classification and that the Government have no right of veto whatever over United States' use of the cruise missiles to be installed in this country? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that reliance on a form of words agreed in 1951 gives no assurance to the House and that the seriousness of this matter can only be brought out in a full debate?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about the multi-fibre arrangement. He will realise that I cannot go beyond what I have already said to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer).
There is no prospect of Government time being available for a debate on defence in the immediate future. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is enthusiastic for the House to have a wide-ranging debate on defence so that the defence policies of the two main parties may be considered and compared. I am sure that he will use his voice to secure an Opposition day to deal with it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: With the Black report debate in prospect and knowing the difficulties in obtaining copies of that report when it was first published, will my right hon. Friend ensure that either the official or privately published copies are made available?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend knows full well what a blockbuster of a question he has put. I shall see what can be done.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Leader of the House aware of the effect that the policy contained in a written answer given to the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) earlier this week will have on the finances of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the television manufacturing companies? Will he give the House the opportunity to debate the technical standards for broadcasting by satellite? If we do not reach the correct decision, there will be serious repercussions.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue of public policy. I am sure that he will be able to use all available opportunities to ensure that that matter is ventilated during private Members' time.

Mr. James Lamond: As the Leader of the House has today again resisted demands for a debate on defence and disarmament, may I unilaterally scale down my request? Is it not reasonable, in view of the talks that are going on in Madrid, Vienna and Geneva about disarmament, that we should have regular and frequent statements by whichever Minister is responsible for those talks in the same way as we have reports about the discussions on the Common Market so that we can question him about Great Britain's position at such talks?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Gentleman's point. I am certain that the Secretary of State will agree with me that the time will soon come when we shall feel that we are saturated with statements and we shall look back to the good old-fashioned days when we had debates.

Mr. David Ennals: Is the Leader of the House aware that 300 hon. Members from all quarters of the House have signed early-day motion 44 calling for a ban on the import of baby sealskins and their products.
[That this House, bearing in mind the motion passed by the European Assembly on 11th March 1982 calling for the banning of the importation of the skins and the products derived from young hooded and harp seals slaughtered in


Canada, the subsequent reports of the Nature Conservancy Council, the recommendation of the European Commission and the support for Early Day Motions Nos. 342 and 344 in the last Session of Parliament by over 300 honourable Members, calls on the Government now to take positive action to stop the importation of these products.]
At the Commission tomorrow Ministers will be considering a draft regulation for a ban which will apply to all EC countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a statement on Monday so that we may know the position and decision taken by the Government on an issue that interests not just hon. Members but people throughout the country?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman raises a point which has excited deep feeling not just within the House but generally. I shall see that the point is brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Robert Parry: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 108 requesting a public inquiry into the use of CS gas cartridges in Liverpool last year?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to institute a public inquiry into the use of Ferret CS gas cartridges in Liverpool, Toxteth during the disturbances in July 1981; notes that the support for a public inquiry comes from the Liverpool City Council, the Merseyside County Council, the Merseyside Police Committee, the Liverpool Trades Council, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Public Employees, the National Graphical Association, the National Association of Local Government Officers and the Merseyside Community Relations Council; and feels that such an inquiry would allay public disquiet and remove any fears of a cover up into the use of such projectiles.]
The motion is supported by 125 right hon. and hon. Members and has the support of many national and regional organisations. As the Home Secretary has admitted to the House that the use of those cartridges at that time was a mistake, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his decision not to call for a public inquiry so that we can say that the House has not been party to a cover-up of the use of those projectiles?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is helpfully sitting alongside me, and I am certain that he will have noted the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Ryman: Will the leader of the House consider initiating a debate on the Office of Fair Trading and references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because this subject has an important influence on unemployment? Is the leader of the House aware that last week the Director General of Fair Trading refused to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission a bid by Alcan (UK) Limited for British Aluminium which will make it almost inevitable that there will be further large-scale unemployment in the aluminium industry?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman and know what it means for unemployment in the North-East in the aluminium industry. I cannot offer Government time for such a debate. It is a natural topic for an Adjournment debate.

Law of the Sea Convention

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The United Nations convention on the law of the sea will be opened for signature in Jamaica on 10 December, and will remain open for signature for two years thereafter. The convention deals with many aspects of the law of the sea. Some provisions are a re-statement or codification of existing international law; some provisions seek to make new law. Parts of the convention, for example, those relating to navigation, the Continental Shelf and Pollution, are helpful, but the provisions relating to deep seabed mining including the transfer of technology are not acceptable. They are based on undesirable regulatory principles and could constitute unsatisfactory precedents. A number of our friends and allies share our misgivings on those points. We need to obtain satisfactory improvements in the deep sea mining regime and will therefore explore the prospects with interested States. As the convention is open for signature for two years, there is ample time for revision before taking a final decision. It is our wish that there should be generally agreed provisions for regulating marine matters and we wish to continue to work with the international community to achieve that.
I should emphasise to the House that we could not participate in a seabed regime on the present terms, and for that reason we could not ratify the convention unless the provisions for the deep sea mining regime become satisfactory.
A copy of the convention and relevant resolutions of the conference have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Denis Healey: The Under-Secretary's statement is utterly unacceptable to the Opposition. It is one more example of the Government behaving as President Reagan's poodle. The Under-Secretary must be aware that this matter has been under negotiation for over 20 years. The convention was supported by 130 countries when it was presented earlier this year, including the overwhelming majority of European and Commonwealth countries. Only the United States of America and three other countries—for different reasons—opposed it. The Government's decision not to ratify the treaty will be regarded as contrary to international and British interests.
Does the Under-Secretary agree that, as a maritime seafaring country, Great Britain has an immense interest in finally deciding the law of the sea on all matters to do with the sailing of vessels, as the convention does, and that there is no chance of any commercial undertaking attempting to explore mineral rights on the seabed unless the legal position is clear?
If the convention is frustrated by the Government's actions, there will be little chance of action in that area, in which the Government are presumably interested, being pursued. Through what machinery does he hope to persuade the 130 countries which have already agreed the convention to change the position that they have taken on the mineral regime? In any case, does not the convention come into force once 60 countries have ratified it" I hope that he will not tell us that the Government will defy a convention once it has come into force.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government's objective throughout the discussions has been to achieve a convention acceptable to the world community as a whole. Not only the United States has expressed opposition to the convention; a number of other countries have grave anxieties, particularly about the mining provisions. For example, the West German Government have not so far expressed an intention to sign the convention; it is possible that they will not do so. The same applies to the Italian and a number of other Governments.
The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect to imply that 130 countries will ratify the convention. So far only the German Democratic Republic has expressed an intention both to sign and to ratify the convention. A number of countries that have expressed an intention to sign have given no assurance about ratification.
It is important that, if at all possible, the maritime provisions should be acceptable to the world community. Those parts of the convention that relate to the free passage of vessels, the Continental Shelf and pollution are acceptable to the Government. As the convention expressly allows two years for countries to decide whether to sign, if it is still the wish of the world community as a whole to have a convention acceptable to all, we hope that further thought will be given to the parts which not only are unacceptable to ourselves and the United States but which have been criticised by a significant number of other countries.

Mr. Healey: With respect, the Under-Secretary is far too intelligent to be unaware of the fact that he has not answered any of my questions.
Does the convention not enter into force if 60 countries ratify it? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government did not oppose the convention when it was discussed earlier this year and that we were one of a small number of countries that abstained? Is not the change in the Government's position, like that of the West German Government, due to excessive and intolerable pressure exerted by the United States Administration? Will not the hon. Gentleman stand up for Britain for a change? The matter is of immense importance to us as a seafaring nation.

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The United Kingdom was one of a substantial number of countries that abstained when the convention was concluded. A small number of countries opposed and voted against the convention; a significantly greater number, including a substantial number of West European and Soviet bloc countries, abstained.
The convention will come into effect if it is ratified by 60 countries. The United Kingdom will honour all conventions that it has ratified; that is what ratification is all about. If we have not ratified a convention, we shall be in the same position as any other country that does not ratify a convention: we shall not be bound by it.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement. He is suggesting that a treaty which for the first time in human history regulates the law of the sea will come into force if ratified by 60 countries but that the Government reserve the right to defy its provisions. How will it help British mineral companies which want to explore the seabed to defy a convention that has entered into force as a result of ratification by the proper number of counties?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that for a country to be bound by an international treaty it has to take the decision to sign and subsequently to ratify it. If it declines to ratify a treaty, it is stating that it does not intend to be bound by it. It is a normal and acceptable part of international law that countries that do not ratify treaties are not bound by them.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question. Does he believe that any mineral company will be prepared to invest the hundreds of millions of pounds required to suck up nodules from the seabed if the Government defy an international convention determining the legal regime under which the activities take place? Has he met any international company that would be prepared to take that risk?

Mr. Rifkind: A country is not defying an international convention if it declines to ratify it; it is simply exercising its sovereign rights as a State.
One of our main anxieties about the present terminology of the convention is that the deep sea mining proposals would deter many international companies from contemplating the expensive investment required.

Mr. J. Grimond: Is the convention amendable, and, if so, how? Having been ratified, does the convention have to reconvene for amendments to be made? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us now or place in the Library the Government's objections to the convention as it stands?

Mr. Rifkind: The convention is open for signature but is unlikely to be ratified by the minimum requirement of 60 States for some time. Previous conventions have sometimes taken a number of years to be ratified. At the very least there will be a substantial gap before possible ratification. If there is sufficient will, there is the opportunity for changes to be made.
The Government's objections primarily concern the deep sea mining regime but also the compulsory requirements for transfer of technology and the limitations on production in deep sea mining which would be a substantial disincentive to mining. Those are the main areas of anxiety, although there are a number of other detailed points.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not the official Opposition's position that vital British interests should be subordinated to the views of a majority of powers whose interests may conflict with ours?

Mr. Rifkind: Anxiety is caused not only by the fact that the proposed regime could have that effect; there is also a provision that the terms of the convention and the regime can be reviewed after 15 years. If there was not unanimity after five years of further discussion, a majority could take a decision, for example, to exclude all commercial private exploitation of the deep seabed, which would certainly be contrary to our interests.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In order not to lose the benefit of the parts of the convention with which we agree and are prepared to accept, should we not consider at least signing or even ratifying the convention with reservations?

Mr. Rifkind: Under certain international conventions that is a possibility. Unfortunately, it is not an option under


this one. Party States have the option of signing the whole convention or declining to sign; they do not have the opportunity to accept only parts.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I say without bravado, as one who put parliamentary questions to Harold Macmillan 20 years ago on the subject and who has followed it ever since, that I am appalled at the Minister's attitude? Does he recollect the work of the late Lord Ritchie-Calder and the point that he often used to make about the extraction of manganese nodules from the seabed and the importance of getting the agreement of the riparian States in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific or elsewhere?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not dispute that, but I repeat that there is real reason to doubt whether the regime proposed would encourage companies which have the technology to invest the vast sums that would be required to extract the nodules from the deep seabed. It is in everyone's interest to have a regime acceptable to the world community as a whole and one that will encourage the private sector, which has the technology, to invest the vast sums required if the resources are to be utilised.

Mr. John H. Osborn: will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Council of Europe and the European Parliament have looked into the matter? Does he recall that the Council has an excellent report prepared by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) and that there is an opinion by the European Economic Affairs and Development Committee, which I entered with the desire to support the United Nations convention but members of the committee found that the industrial and bureaucratic provisions were intolerable? What representations has my hon. Friend had from international mining companies and others to the effect that the agreement would be intolerable?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the study to the attention of the House. I believe that the mining companies' anxiety is that the system adopted by the world community should be an incentive and not a disincentive to deep sea mining. The production controls, the transfer of technology requirements and other similar factors constitute a substantial disincentive.
We hope that there will still be opportunity, especially over the next two years, for further thought to be given to changes that will enable the world community to unite and endorse a regime that will encourage deep sea mining. If such changes can be contemplated, that is something that we shall welcome.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister concede that the objections are being promoted by a small group of companies, which are based mainly in the United States, which have the technology to exploit the resources lying on the deep sea bed? Is he asking the House and the British people to believe that these companies would go ahead, under the supervision of licences granted by the United States, in opposition to nearly all the countries in the world? Is he asking the House to believe that that is the main stumbling block? Is he suggesting that the United Kingdom has no interest in these affairs other than in consortia with United States' companies?
Will he accept that we are being dragged into international disrepute at the behest of Reagan economics in the international sphere? Will he concede that this

attitude of mind undermines many areas of international co-operation which are essential if we are to get out of the slump?

Mr. Rifkind: American and British companies must speak for themselves. I am not aware of any public statements that they have made in the United States, in Europe or elsewhere in which they have called for the proposals of the law of the sea convention to be accepted by nation States. If they have great enthusiasm for the proposals, they have not given that indication.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is no urgency in this matter because deep sea mining is unlikely to take place before 2000 AD? Is he aware of the danger of recognising an international seabed authority, which would lead to the conclusion that there would have to be an international Antarctic authority and an international space authority, too?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to say that in any circumstances the prospects for mining on the deep sea bed are a good number of years ahead. It is a distant prospect rather than an immediate one irrespective of the attitudes that countries take to the convention. He is right also to say that our policy towards this convention could be used as a precedent in other discussions that might take place on other matters in future.

Mr. Tom McNally: Is not the Minister aware of the high priority given by successive Governments to the law of the sea conference? It was one example where order could be brought where anarchy could reign. Does he accept that the low level or even casual way in which the Government have brought this announcement to the House could suggest that they are beginning to enter a conspiracy to wreck the whole process on behalf of narrow vested interests?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in making that suggestion. The Government do not desire to wreck international co-operation. We have said that there are large parts of the convention which we find acceptable, which are attractive and which are of interest to the international community. However, the deepsea mining provisions are not an incidental part of the convention. They form a major part of the convention, and one that has been most controversial in recent years. The British Government have never made any secret of their concern about and disagreement with these proposals. We did not endorse the convention when it was approved some months ago. We still hope to see sufficient changes made over the next two years by the international community, before a final decision on signature is required, to enable us to endorse it. We shall be delighted to do(so, but only if the terms of the convention are consistent with British interests.

Mr. David Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by all countries which have expertise in deep sea mining which are prepared to invest in it and to become involved in it? Of the many changes in the convention which I hope he will pursue, will he ensure that the membership of the executive council of the proposed authority will include countries that are involved in deep sea mining and will not be confined to countries which are land-locked and which do not even know how to deep sea mine?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that many of the countries that have indicated that they are likely to sign the convention are not involved in deep sea mining, and would be only beneficiaries to the convention and would not have only obligations under it. He is correct also to say that it is desirable that those involved in the international seabed authority, if it is set up, should be the countries most involved. The United Kingdom will be able to be involved in the debates at the preparatory commission. However, it will not have a vote at that commission unless it has signed the convention.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places to ask questions and then to call the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), before ending questions on the statement.

Mr. Joan Evans: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems that has faced mankind over the years has been conflicts about ownership of the earth's surface? The purpose of the law of the sea conference is to ensure that there are not the same conflicts in the development of the oceans' beds. If the Government are going along with the United States of America—the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned any other country that has seriously said that it is against the law of the sea proposals—will they introduce positive proposals with a view to seeking some international agreement? Is he aware that if there is a failure to do so there will be a danger of a serious conflict because of an inability to determine what areas should be developed by what countries?

Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government are not against international co-operation on the exploitation of the deep seabed. That is a desirable principle. We take exception to particular proposals within the convention, which if imposed through the international seabed authority and the various other structural innovations that are proposed could result in an unwieldy, bureaucratic and possibly unworkable system which would deter rather than encourage the investment and co-operation that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Keith Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only effective international law is that which is achieved through unanimity, which, of course, involves acceptance by other major countries as well as our own? His caution in safeguarding British interests will be welcomed widely—we must proceed carefully in these matters—but will he accept that many will be looking for the Government and the United Kingdom to take a major part in ensuring that a fundamental step in international law is not lost for ever?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised a valuable point. It is a harsh fact of life that any convention bearing on deep sea mining that did not have the United States as a party would be of relatively little value in achieving international agreement. That is because of the overwhelming and predominant contribution that the United States makes to technology and possible developments in this area of activity. I agree with the objectives that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. John Ryman: It is correct in law that there cannot be a breach of a convention unless there is prior ratification by the United Kingdom Government, but does

the Minister agree that his nonchalant attitude to this issue will create the impression, however unwittingly, that Her Majesty's Government are adopting an insular attitude and shirking their responsibility to the Third world by appearing to obstruct a comprehensive international agreement to distribute the wealth of the world among those who most need it?

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for educating Members on the Opposition Front Bench. The United Kingdom cannot be bound by a convention that it has not ratified. It is not the desire of Her Majesty's Government to obstruct co-operation with the Third world. Much of the convention is acceptable. However, there is one major aspect of it which is unacceptable. It will come as no surprise to any Third world country that the United Kingdom disagrees with the parts of the convention to which I have referred. I hope that there will still be an opportunity for international discussion and co-operation that will lead to changes that will be acceptable to the United Kingdom and the world community.

Mr. Gary Waller: I accept that the convention as drafted is clearly flawed and in need of revision. However, does my hon. Friend agree that some form of treaty is necessary in future to give the world community, especially Third world developing countries, some hope that they can develop their own economic system and improve their performance? Will the Government work to achieve a more satisfactory solution that delivers goods and is acceptable to all?

Mr. Rifkind: I can certainly give that assurance. It is undoubtedly in the interests of the world community that there should be an international convention that is acceptable to it as a whole. So far that has not proved possible with this convention but we shall do our best to see whether it can be made possible during the next two years.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the problem that the Prime Minister, who is so renownedly ignorant about foreign affairs and so pitifully tied to Reagan's coat tails, has personally intervened yet once again?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question is so absurd that it does not require a reply.

Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the exchanges in the past half hour demonstrate that it is the view of a large number of hon. Members that the Government's attitude is just one more example of their indifference to international order, their hostility to the interests of the Third world and their subservience to the temporary commercial interests of American companies? The House will wish to debate the matter, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that the Government will give us an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his latter point is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. No doubt my right hon. Friend has heard every word of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution.
The exchanges that we have had do not suggest that the House overwhelmingly takes a different view from the Government. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Opposition take a different view; but that is not unusual.

Broadcasting (Cable Systems)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The object of this debate is to give the House, as the Government have promised, an opportunity to contribute to the wide-ranging public discussion that is already going on about the future of cable systems: both the broadcasting aspects covered in the Hunt report and the various other aspects of the question. It is also the Government's intention to use the debate as the occasion for indicating to the House and the public the broad framework within which we see cable policy developing.
I need not stress the significance of the subject of today's debate. Cable technology is with us. The question is not whether to adopt it, but how to adapt it to best advantage for our economy and way of life; how to gain the future benefits that new technology can bring, and yet avoid damage to valued national traditions and institutions.
As Home Secretary my particular concern with cable systems is where they impinge on broadcasting policy, but there is much more than that to cable policy. There is the whole area of interactive services such as teleshopping, telebanking, and burglar alarms. There are technological questions relating, for example, to the rival merits of tree-and-branch and switched-star systems, coaxial cable and optical fibre. I shall not embark on a detailed account of those matters, but shall leave them to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, who will conclude the debate for the Government.
In setting the scene for today's debate, I am struck by the rapidity with which public awareness of cable has developed. A year ago, perhaps few of us had any keen awareness of cable, of its existing function—largely broadcast relay—or of its future potential in both entertainment and advanced information services. The increase in interest and understanding over the past 12 months is indeed striking. Many conferences, seminars, articles in the press and broadcast programmes have made a big contribution to a growing public debate.
More specifically, the publication in March of a report on cable systems by the information technology advisory panel, set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was an important stimulus. The panel foresaw welcome opportunities for this country—opportunities for employment, industrial growth, technological development and overseas trade—that could lie in an expansion of the extent and scope of broad-band cable systems. That report, welcomed wholeheartedly in some circles, prompted doubts and reservations in others, chiefly perhaps because it was seen as having profound implications for our system of broadcasting which the panel—as it freely admitted—had not been able to tackle.
Accordingly, on the day of publication of the panel's report, I announced the setting up of an inquiry, under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Hunt of Tanworth, to consider those broadcasting implications. The inquiry was asked:
To take as its frame of reference the Government's wish to secure the benefits for the United Kingdom which cable technology can offer and its willingness to consider an expansion of the cable system which would permit cable to carry a wider

range of entertainment and other services (including when available services of direct broadcasting by satellite), but in a way consistent with the wider public interest, in particular the safeguarding of public service broadcasting.

Mr. John Gorst: In the context of carrying all four existing channels, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Independent Broadcasting Authority that a fourth channel that is composed of bad language, political bias and many other undesirable qualities should not be carried by a cable television system?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend will know that that is not part of this debate. However, I recognise that there is widespread public concern about what my hon. Friend has said. No doubt the members of the IBA who are responsible for the programmes on that channel will note the widespread public concern expressed both by my hon. Friend and throughout the country.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: It is not widespread.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. I can only say—from what has been said to me and from correspondence that I have receixed—that concern is widespread. I am entitled to my view, and I believe that that is so. I wish to leave the matter there, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the fourth channel has generated considerable concern and correspondence, as the Home Office well knows.
Concurrently, groups within Whitehall were set up to study other aspects—economic and industrial implications, technological matters, and the interaction with other parts of our telecommunications policy. The Departrnents concerned have consulted widely with industry and outside organisations concerned.
Lord Hunt, Sir Maurice Hodgson and Professor Ring deserve our thanks for the speed and diligence with which they worked in order to complete their complex task within the six months allotted to them. Their report was published on 12 October. Barely three weeks later, the Gracious Speech signified the Government's intention that
Proposals will be prepared for the development and expansion of cable systems.
In today's debate, the Government take the first steps towards fulfilling that commitment. I say "the first steps", because today's debate has a dual object. The first object is to indicate to Parliament, and to others concerned, the broad lines of the Government's approach to cable. Secondly, we wish to give the House the opportunity to express its views both on the broad framework of policy and on the many matters of comparative detail, albeit important, that the Hunt report raises.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Hunt committee was asked to accept, as one of its assumptions, that there had to be a split between the carriers of the cable systems and the providers of programmes?

Mr. Whitelaw: The committee was allowed to consider all the matters involved, as its terms of reference made clear.
On a number of these matters my intention today is not to announce a Government preference, but simply to identify the issue and focus discussion on it. Thereafter our aim is to publish, in the early part of next year, a White Paper. This will set out a detailed scheme for cable


systems as a basis for legislation as soon as possible, although clearly not in the present Session. As I shall explain later, that does not necessarily mean that nothing can happen until a Bill has been enacted. There are possibilities of interim action, to which I shall refer.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It has been widely reported that the Prime Minister will make an announcement about that aspect of cable at a public meeting next Tuesday. How can it be said that we are being given the opportunity to consult and debate if the right hon. Lady intends to decide for us next Tuesday?

Mr. Whitelaw: Frankly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not decide for us next Tuesday. She will make a speech on the matter. I am sorry—I should have said Wednesday. However, whether the day is Tuesday or Wednesday, my right hon. Friend will not do so. I have made it clear that we are having a debate to hear the views of the House. I have said that the Government will publish a White Paper after the debate. If I say that, it is what I mean. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the way in which the Government intend to proceed. It is important to make that abundantly clear. Otherwise, people may feel that this debate is not worth while. It is. By referring to some of the problems, I hope to show that I recognise the importance of discussing these matters in the House and of deciding on many of the extremely difficult issues involved.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he intends to follow the recommendation in paragraph 98 of the Hunt report, about which many hon. Members are unhappy, which suggests that, in the absence of the time for legislation, progress should be made without the authority of the House behind it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I promised that I would raise that issue, and I shall do so later. The House will decide this matter. I shall listen to the views expressed today and a White Paper will be published in February. No decisions on how we shall proceed will be taken until the House has pronounced its opinion and has had another chance to look at the White Paper. That is surely a fair way to go forward.
Starting with the general aspects of cable policy, I begin by declaring the Government's belief that opportunities should be created for the development of cable systems and their intention to provide those opportunities. By providing opportunities, we mean removing unnecessary obstacles and restrictions; creating an appropriate statutory framework that encourages and does not constrict development; and laying down such minimum technical and other standards as are necessary for orderly growth in the general interest.
We want cable to be free to provide a wide range of programmes of entertainment, information and education, and interactive services, but we do not mean to prescribe a detailed plan or to create a new area of public investment. Here, as elsewhere, we believe that in many respects private investment and market forces should determine the pace at which and the directions in which there is development. The Government accept the Hunt committee's recommendation that there should be no mandatory separation between the cable operator and the cable provider.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the technical specifications are all important and that, if this development is to depend on market forces, we shall have a patchwork of cable systems that will not relate to each other? If so, we shall not have the interactive network that he mentioned. It is essential that the Government, apart from being neutral, should at least lay down some hard technical guidelines.

Mr. Whitelaw: As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology will deal specifically with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Secondly, we do not believe in totally random developments. There is a public interest to be asserted. There is the interest of consumers—those who will use cable services and those who will continue to rely on conventional broadcast services—and the interests of the cable providers and operators.
With the Hunt report, we believe that a statutory cable authority is needed—

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Bearing in mind recommendation No. 46 of the Hunt report and the fact that the envisaged cable authority will award franchises and monitor performance, to what extent will the duties of that body differ from the functions and powers of the IBA?

Mr. Whitelaw: The House and the Government will have a chance to consider the extent to which it differs when we debate the White Paper and, thereafter, any legislation. Part of the reason for the debate is to decide the sort of authority that we ought to have.

Mr. Whitehead: The Home Secretary said that the Government accepted the Hunt recommendation that there should be no separation between the cable provider and the programme provider, but he did not say why. Surely we have a right to know.

Mr. Whitelaw: I said "no mandatory separation", and that is what I believe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Simply because I believe it to be the correct decision—[AN HON. MEMBER: "That is a circular argument."] It may be a circular argument, but it is none the worse for that, because circular arguments are sometimes very good.
With the Hunt report, we believe that a statutory cable authority is needed to consider applications to cable, to award franchises and to exercise sufficient but not excessive supervision over the services—programme services in particular—that cable operators will provide. Again with Hunt, we take the view that a new authority is required. We do not favour adding the function to those functions already exercised by the IBA.
In reaching that conclusion we are far from ignoring the willingness of the IBA to undertake this new function or the pointers in favour of its doing so. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that the regulation of cable will be a new task requiring a new approach, and we believe that this newness is best achieved and marked by setting up a new authority.

Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes; but it is becoming almost impossible to make progress with my speech.

Mr. Gorst: I thank my right hon. Friend. Are there any estimates of the likely cost of a new cable authority


compared with the cost of the IBA? If my right hon. Friend were able to give such an indication, the House would be in a better position to judge what is being proposed.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid that I can give no such indication. This will depend entirely on the type of authority that we finally decide to set up, on exactly what functions it will have, on exactly how many people it will need to perform those functions, and on many other matters. Were I to pronounce on them now, I would be denying the House the right to say what sort of authority we should have. I cannot, therefore, give my hon. Friend the answer for which he has asked.
Next, there is the framework in which the authority will operate, the tasks that will fall to it and the style that it should seek to establish. The Government are broadly in accord with the general approach and particular recommendations of the Hunt report.
On the authority's style and approach, we endorse the Hunt committee's view that cable should be seen—and we hope it will develop—not as another form of public service broadcasting, but as something different from but complementary to it. This will require a different approach to regulation from the form that the IBA exercises in relation to ITV. However, it would be a mistake to suppose, as some people seem to have done, that the Hunt committee or the Government envisage a "toothless" authority. Through its franchising and refranchising function, its monitoring of cable output and its reserve powers of intervention, if it became worried about an operator's performance it would be able to exercise very considerable influence.

Mr. Hattersley: The nature of such intervention is crucial to the debate. As I recall, the Hunt committee does not talk about the reserve powers of intervention between franchises. What does the Home Secretary mean by "reserve powers"?

Mr. Whitelaw: I stand to be corrected, but I think that Hunt does talk about reserve powers. It will be for the House to decide, after a long period of discussion, including discussion on the White Paper and the legislation, what powers the authority will have. It is important that we should not decide now exactly what we want the authority to do. As always, I stand to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I think that I am right.
As I indicated earlier, it is not the Government's intention in this debate to take the Hunt recommendations in detail and give a decision or even a view on each. That stage will come later—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wednesday?"] I hope that I have shot that bird, if hon. Members know what I mean.

Mr. Clement Freud: I did not know she was in season.

Mr. Whitelaw: What I mean is that the argument that all will be announced on Wednesday is not true. I hope it is understood that way. We shall then promulgate our detailed proposals in a White Paper. But I believe it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on certain Hunt recommendations that have attracted particular interest, and on which the Government would welcome the view of hon. Members.
The specific task of the Hunt inquiry was to consider
the safeguarding of public service broadcasting".

A number of its recommendations contribute to that object—for example, the whole framework of a franchising and supervising authority, which the Government believe is right. At a more specific level, we think it right that cable systems should be required to carry the public service broadcasing programmes transmitted by the BBC and IBA.
Another important safeguard for public service broadcasting is that cable operators, like broadcasters, should not be able to obtain "exclusive rights" for national sporting events. The mechanism of such a restriction, and the list of events to which it should apply, will need careful working out, but the importance of the principle is clear.
The Hunt report recommended a ban "for the time being" on "pay-per-view". That is a system under which the subscriber can be offered for payment particular individual programmes—for example, sporting events outside the ban on "exclusive rights". The public service broadcasters, who have to finance channels as a whole, see a particular threat in this kind of programme finance. They would find it hard to compete, so that either general programme budgets would be starved or the general viewing public would be deprived of particular key events or pieces of entertainment. Conversely, cable interests see "pay-per-view" as an important source of finance. They suggest it could be confined to programmes which otherwise would not be seen on the television screen at all. These are difficult matters requiring further thought, on which we shall welcome the views of the House. It may be that some way can be found of giving cable operators and subscribers the benefits of some limited form of "pay-per-view", but I stress that any such solution would need to add to what is available through public service broadcasting, not subtract from it.
"Pay-per-view" apart, Hunt recommended that cable should be able to finance itself by rental payments, subscription, advertising and—with safeguards—sponsorship. The Government accept this recommendation. The main point of controversy here is whether, as Hunt proposed, cable should, at least for the present, be unrestricted as to the amount of advertising shown. That would be in contrast to ITV and independant local radio, where the number of minutes in an hour allotted to advertising is regulated by the IBA. Clearly, on some cable channels—for example, one dedicated to "classified advertising"—a time limitation would be out of place, but other channels may be of a more general entertainment type comparable with ITV. Hence the ITV companies argue that they should not be placed at a disadvantage. We shall have to consider whether restrictions should be imposed on that sort of cable channel; whether the present restrictions on ITV should be modified or removed altogether; or whether different regimes can be justified.
We shall also have to consider how to give effect to what seems the sound Hunt recommendation that the IBA advertising standards and code should apply to cable advertisements. The IBA code is operated through pre-vetting of advertisements, in some cases by the programme company, but more usually by the Independent Television Companies Association, which takes much of the load off the IBA. It is difficult to see how it could work retrospectively, as Hunt suggests.
An issue on which a sharp divergence of view has already developed is whether there should be specific requirements regarding the amount of British and other


European Community material to be shown on cable. The BBC and ITV are obliged to show a "proper proportion" of British and European Community material—interpreted in practice as 86 per cent. Hunt considered that such a requirement would seriously inhibit cable operators and was inappropriate. However, the cable authority should encourage the production and use of British material on cable. Certainly the current BBC and IBA requirements could not, as they stand, be applied to cable. But if cable were placed under no restriction, it would be necessary to consider whether the present restrictions on the BBC and ITV—which undoubtedly add to their programming costs—could be maintained.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: This is the point about which I have received most letters. Many people are seriously worried that we shall be entering an era of wall-to-wall Dallas, which is a serious matter to contemplate. Will the Home Secretary give an assurance that this matter will be seriously considered? Compared with other industrial nations, we are good at producing television. The Japanese allow only five per cent. of foreign content in their programmmes. It is a pity that we do not insist on such a percentage of video recorders coming into Britain.

Mr. Whitelaw: In saying that there was a sharp divergence of view, I must make it clear that this matter will be studied by the Government and by the House with the greatest care. The position in other countries will also be considered. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
In the area of programme content, attention has concentrated on the risk of pornography being carried on cable. The main Hunt recommendation here is that cable operators should be subject to the same requirements as the BBC and IBA to ensure that their programmes do not offend against good taste and decency, encourage crime, lead to disorder or offend public feeling. The BBC and IBA are required to take special care with regard to programmes broadcast when children are likely to be watching. Certainly there are considerable arguments about the success of the BBC and IBA in maintaining these standards at the present time. Be that as it may, it seems clearly right that no less a requirement should attach to cable programmes. It is an aspect of cable operation in which, no doubt, the cable authority will find itself taking a close interest.
The BBC and IBA interpret the taste and decency requirement, and their obligation to have special regard to programmes shown when young people are watching, as allowing the showing, late at night, of programmes which are unsuitable for children, including some—but not all—X-certificate films. Hunt recommended that this restriction as regards time need not be applied on a cable subscription channel which had an electronic lock embodying a personal code, such as to enable the adult subscriber to control the programmes that children could watch, even in his absence.

Mr. Freud: Does the Home Secretary agree that the only people who are capable of dealing with an electronic locking device are children?

Mr. Whitelaw: If I were to refer to my grandchildren, rather than myself, the answer would undoubtedly be

"Yes". The hon. Gentleman has a serious point. I was asked the question and I gave the honest answer. I am entitled to do that.
Furthermore, Hunt said that it was arguable whether, on such a channel, the ordinary taste and decency requirements need apply at all, provided that films could be shown only if they had been approved for public exhibition through the film censorship system. This proposal, which, like the rest of the scheme, can be seen as enlarging individual choice, has undoubtedly caused anxiety—not to say scepticism—in some quarters, and will require further consideration. It is not integral to the scheme as a whole.
There are other specific recommendations to which I could devote time, but it will probably be more helpful to the House if I look ahead towards implementation of a programme of cable expansion. I have spoken already of a White Paper in the spring; of legislation, though not in this Session; and of the establishment under statute of a new cable authority with franchising and supervisory functions.
That is an orderly way ahead, but it will take time. I recognise that there are those who will argue that we cannot afford to wait. There are consortia already working up plans. There are existing cable operators anxious to be relieved of their requirement to carry BBC and IBA programmes on their cable—they would provide off-air reception instead—so that they can offer revenue-earning services on their existing obsolescent systems.
The question is asked "Can we now go ahead on an interim basis?" Technically, the answer is "Yes, we could." There are licensing powers—those under which cable operators are licensed to relay BBC and IBA services and to provide the existing subscription pilot schemes, and the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. However, these powers have been devised and used in a context very different from the one that now confronts us.
We now face the prospect of large and, it must be hoped, profitable investment, competition for franchises, and wide-ranging programming. The Hunt report is surely right to see it as the task of a cable authority to shoulder the responsibilities for franchising and programme supervision, thus distancing the Government from these decisions in much the same way as the IBA has successfully done with regard to ITV. If the cable authority approach is the right and necessary one, I see great difficulty, even for a limited interim period, in managing without an authority and doing it all through ministerial licensing powers.
There is a halfway house, hinted at in the Hunt report. Once a detailed scheme for cable had been published in a White Paper and given parliamentary authority, a future cable authority could be appointed in the form—technically—of an advisory committee. This advisory committee, with its staff, could begin work on some initial franchising of new systems and of new services for existing systems. Formal effect could be given to the advice of the advisory committee through the granting of ministerial licences.
While this approach would hasten work on cable franchises, it has obvious disadvantages. In particular, it would leave Ministers with formal responsibility for matters—both franchising decisions and programme content—which we, like Hunt, believe are properly


entrusted to an independent authority. The Government will be interested to hear the reactions of right hon. and hon. Members and others to it.
Our task today, as I said at the outset, is not to debate the pros and cons of whether cable systems should exist, but to accept the fact of the technology and to determine how to use it positively and to best advantage. The Government, for their part, are keen to develop plans for the expansion of cable that will enjoy widespread support and inspire investment confidence. I hope I have made the broad framework clear. Much of the detail requires further thought, but, backed, I hope, by support in the House today, we shall press ahead and bring a White Paper before the House in the early months of 1983.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by echoing the classic understatement contained in the opening lines of Lord Hunt's inquiry into cable expansion and broadcasting policy. The document starts by saying:
The decisions which must be taken in relation to cable expansion are of great significance.
No one will be disposed to argue with that. The expansion of cable technology and all that it implies for broadcasting, for industry, for communications and, therefore, for society as a whole, is absolutely irresistible. No one on the Opposition Benches has the slightest wish to stand in the path of history. The error of the Luddites was that they wished to smash the new machinery. We want to accept and welcome the existence of the new technology, but to make sure that it works on behalf of the community as a whole and not simply in the interests of a narrow group of speculators.
I must confess that I was initially prepared to express fears which my hon. Friends behind me have already offered to the Home Secretary that every decision has been taken and that all we had to do was to wait until Wednesday, the Barbican and the Prime Minister, and every dot and comma of this policy would be announced. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has unequivocally made it clear that this is not the case. I accept without reservation that if he says that that is so, it is so. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, forgive me for saying, as good naturedly as I can, that for a policy that is not decided, it contains a number of immutable elements that were announced to us today.
I give two examples. One is that there should be no statutory separation between cable companies and programme companies. I disagree. The other is that the statutory authority eventually created should not be the IBA. I agree. However, whether I agree or disagree, the Home Secretary will concede, I am sure, that some of the fundamentals of policy have been decided before the House was given the technical opportunity for the consultations that the right hon. Gentleman claims are taking place today. My fear about the policy is that the Government's fundamental position on operating a virtually laissez-faire cable system was decided before the Hunt committee was set up.
It seems to many of us that as soon as the Information Technology Advisory Panel which, described honestly, is simply a conglomeration of vested interests had prepared the way for unregulated cable systems, the Government decided to act within that framework. There was a brief and limited report from Lord Hunt. We are now going

through a token period of consultation. It is clear that the Government will press ahead along the laissez-faire lines which have been leaked to newspaper after newspaper and which the Home Secretary, in his statement, has confirmed categorically is the Government's intention. That is the only possible interpretation of the manner in which the Hunt committee behaved and the nature of its report.
I must say, with great respect to the three distinguished gentlemen who produced the document, that they so circumscribed their investigation that what they produced in the end was the most intellectually inadequate document of this sort that I have ever read—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Industry describes my comment as "Rubbish". I should therefore welcome a comment on the two points I wish to raise. The Home Secretary has been a great deal more reasonable and his actions a great deal more acceptable by democratic standards than the approach adopted by the Hunt committee. I refer to the possibility of introducing cable by the back door. The Hunt committee is the first statutory committee whose report I have ever read that has actually offered the Government the opportunity of bypassing Parliament. In paragraph 98, the committee actually says that, to fulfil all the obligations it thinks necessary,
The new authority will need to be established by legislation.
It goes on to say, in broad terms, that if the Government do not feel that they can get the legislation this Session, they may choose to operate under powers that Parliament provided for quite different purposes.
If the Secretary of State for Industry regards that as the way in which official committees should behave, he will astound hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can only be pleased that it is the Home Secretary rather than the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of these things and that he has decided or has got near to deciding, I hope, that we are not to have cable by the back door but that if there is to be cable and the cable authority, then the Bill to provide that authority must be properly presented to Parliament.
There is another question concerning the Hunt committee's behaviour in this regard. Its report contains another example of what I must describe as its willingness to sing the Government's tune. In chapter 3 or page 8, paragraph 22, there is this extraordinary sentence:
Although not within our terms of reference, the national common carrier model appears unlikely as it is inconsistent with the Government's policy".
Clearly the examination of a national common carrier model was within its formal terms of reference. Any hon. Gentleman who reads page 1 of the report will find the terms of reference laid down by the Prime Minister, which make it clear that had the Hunt committee wanted to consider the national common carrier model it would have been entitled to do so. It did not do so, because it knew that that was not what the Government were after. It seems extraordinary that we have an official committee of this type saying in its report that it produces for Parliament that it did not examine some options because to do so would have displeased the Government.
The Labour Party is in favour of a national common carrier. We believe that it should be run by British Telecom. That is the way to ensure that eventually we have a system laid that is appropriate to the nation's future needs rather than having a system that produces a quick profit in


some areas, and a diminishing return in others. That is the way to ensure that eventually, although not within the next five to 10 years, a national network is available for all the country.
I shall ask the Home Secretary a specific question about the national network. Can the Government tell us whether it is their belief that, under their laissez-faire scheme, the whole country will be covered by cable? At the Edinburgh international television festival, I had the pleasure and good fortune to hear the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. He said repeatedly that the Government's private enterprise scheme would eventually result in the entire country being covered. I must say in defence of this proposition that nobody at the conference believed it—not the programme makers, or those who wanted to make large profits out of cable.
The Minister's question time was made up almost exclusively of questions about how he could come to such a conclusion to which he blandly replied—the best description for the Minister in general is bland—that he was more optimistic than the rest of us, and had hope, confidence and faith.
I hope that between 9.30 and 10 o'clock we may have a little more than hope, faith, confidence and optimism, and that the Minister will tell us whether he thinks that his scheme will one day cover the entire country, or whether the Government are embarking on a cable system for limited parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gorst: I hope that I can set the right hon. Gentleman at ease on this matter. He has nothing to worry about because if the Government are determined to accept the recommendations from Lord Hunt, the length of the franchise will be only about eight years and no one in private enterprise will come forward with any type of investment. The franchise needs to be at least 15 or 25 years.

Mr. Hattersley: At half-past nine the hon. Gentleman will find that the Minister is a good deal more optimistic and confident, and has a good deal more faith and hope, which he will wish the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to emulate. However, I wish to hear what the Government believe about these matters, what they think will be the outcome of the scheme, and where they think cable will be laid.
My fear is that cable will be laid in only a few limited areas, where it is immediately profitable for cable to be put down. That will be particularly so if the Government will allow franchises to be given without requiring those companies that choose to lay cable in the most profitable areas to extend their enterprises into other areas nearby where the profit may not be as great but the need is virtually the same.

Mr. John Browne: Surely that is the answer. If an area is likely to be unprofitable, then it is likely that people in it do not want cable. Why lay in areas where the cable is not wanted? That is the whole point, and it is the freedom of choice that is being offered to the individual.

Mr. John Golding: Game, set and match.

Mr. Hattersley: I accept that what the hon. Gentleman describes is a rough approximation of what will happen,

but I wish to know whether the Government support that view, whether that is what they want and whether they are with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) in his abrasive view that cable is for those who can afford it and for those companies that are prepared to market a cheap product in areas where it can be bought expensively.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I am interested in the development of this argument, because, if we think back to the arrival of BBC television and then of ITV, we remember that many people could not receive either for years. Many could not afford colour television for many years either. Will the right hon. Gentleman limit advancement and progress on the basis that everyone has to have it at the same time?

Mr. Hattersley: That is wrong in two different ways. It is factually incorrect because only a very small proportion of people were unable to receive ITV after five years. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must attempt to understand that the provision of cable in some areas, as I have attempted to demonstrate, not only denies the areas that do not have cable the programmes that cable is putting out. Because of the way that cable is likely to be financed, it will, in some areas where cable is not installed, deny listeners the programmes that they presently receive from BBC and ITV.
I give the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) credit for having read the report, but from what the Home Secretary has said, both Hunt and the Home Secretary are only offering a cable limitation on national sporting events. That will mean that cable in prosperous South-West England will purchase some broadcasts that are normally transmitted to all the United Kingdom, and the broadcasts will not be available in areas where cable does not exist. The choice that the hon. Member for Gravesend is advocating is a denial of choice for some who already enjoy it.
Our fear is that if we are to have this patchy laying of cable in area by area, with no attempt at network, and our wish for a national common carrier run by British Telecom is the way to obtain the national—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] Hon. Members must not sigh as if I had given away some extraordinary secret. I gave that extraordinary secret away 10 minutes ago.
Of course the Labour Party wants a national common carrier owned and run by British Telecom, because it will meet the needs of the community rather than meeting the needs of small areas of private profit. If we do not have the national common carrier, there will be two problems. One, which I have described, is the creation of two television nations, the prosperous areas having cable and the prosperous companies buying programmes that would otherwise be nationally distributed, and the non-prosperous areas being denied them.
There is a second problem, which company after company has honestly admitted when it has taken part in the innumerable seminars on this subject that have been a characteristic of our lives for the past six months. There will be some areas where the profitability of cable is so marginal that the companies after a year or so are teetering on the edge of viability. Then they will have to buy more and more low-cost, low-quality foreign films. That will happen if we do not have a national system but one that operates in various parts of the country according to the demand provided commercially in different regions.
If it is simply left to the free-for-all, the best understanding of what will come about is demonstrated and exemplified by the extraordinary lobbying that hon. Members from all parts of the House have had to endure during the past six months.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: By the BBC.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, it is the duty of the trade unions and British Telecom to express their opinions on the matter. However, on no other subject have hon. Members on either side of the House been subject to the number of glossy booklets, offers of hospitality and promises of good things to come that they have been offered during the past six months while the cable franchises were discussed.
To those who are lobbying so hard I want to say two or three things on behalf of the Opposition. I suspect that the Government will go ahead with undue and irresponsible haste and encourage the creation of a generally unregulated cable system. What the Home Secretary said this afternoon made that clear. I suspect that the outdated coaxial cable will be preferred to modern fibre optic because it can be rushed in more quickly. I suspect that foreign technology will be allowed to dominate the market as it has a head start. I suspect that the most profitable areas will provide programmes that poach from the national network. I suspect that the providers of programmes and the providers of cable will, as the Home Secretary says, be allowed to have concentrated power. I suspect that the content of programmes will be subject to virtually no effective supervision.
However, the prospective companies ought to know that a Labour Government intend to rectify those mistakes. We want to see a successful cable system. We want to see the jobs that it can create. We want to see the social and technical benefits that it can bring about. However, we want all the benefits to be enjoyed by all the people, not to be exploited by a handful of foreign-based companies and not used to dilute the standards and content of British television.
Anyone who doubts the outcome of the present system as envisaged by the Government needs to do no more than look in his or her file for a letter that he or she has almost certainly recently received from the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). His writing paper was headed with the proclamation that cable was "a great opportunity for British industry." The only thing that slightly diluted the message was that it was written on the paper of the Sony television company. If one wants to comment on what it is pretended will happen as distinct from what will really happen the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to it exactly. That is what we fear and that is what a large proportion of people concerned with standards as well as employment prospects fear as well.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice that he would raise that point. The arrangement for the Sony people to come to the House of Commons and tell us what they thought was in the interests of British industry was one that I made on my own decision. An all-party group of Members turned up to hear what the Sony people had to say, which was thought by all present to be in the interests of British industry. The Sony people said that, whatever happened, they would do

well out of it, which is fair enough. However, there was one way, which they advocated openly, by which the advantages to British industry would be substantially greater. As employers of 1,500 British people in Wales they took that view. I have no reason to regret asking them to come here. Let us have the benefit of their judgment.

Mr. Hattersley: I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's intentions or integrity. I am merely saying that few hon. Members believe that Japanese assemblers are normally prepared to provide their time, money and resources to offer advice to British industry on how we and they can beat the Japanese. I believe that the Japanese are almost certainly in favour of something other than the greater success of British industry. They were right. What the Government are doing will be of immeasurable benefit to Japanese industry. The Government are rushing in in a precipitous way.
The Government are encouraged in so doing by the Hunt report, which generally recommended neither supervision of programme content nor supervision of the behaviour of companies. I make it clear that it is our view that it is absolutely essential that supervision be provided. That is supervision in two senses—supervision of the companies that lay the cables and supervision of the companies that eventually broadcast the programmes.
I shall deal with what I mean by supervision. I accept, of course, that with a number of channels and buttons to press it is not possible to have a new authority, perhaps modelled on the IBA but separate from it, previewing and prevetting the output of every channel. That new authority should be given the right, when there are constant complaints and difficulties, to require a broadcasting company to submit all its programmes for a limited period for previewing and prevetting.
The Home Secretary and I had a genial dispute as to whether he or I was wrong, both of us conceding the likelihood that we were wrong. The Home Secretary seems to believe that a residual and back-up power is recommended in Hunt that would enable, if the recommendation is carried out, the new authority to excerise the supervision that I have described. I cannot find that in the appropriate paragraphs. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us not so much whether that power appears in Hunt, because my fallibility in these matters is well known to the House, but, more importantly, whether the Government intend to implement such a power. The important thing is not whether it is in the report—I am probably wrong—

Mr. Raymond Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Nigel Forman: May I assist the right hon. Gentleman? Paragraph 89 of the Hunt report refers to the approval subsequent to the initial franchise. It states:
The approval of the franchising body would however be needed if it was subsequently proposed to modify the basis on which the franchise had been granted".
The report continues in that vein.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he has helped me, I must tell him that he has not. That is not the power that I hoped for and that the Home Secretary hinted existed. I want a power that allows a body such as the IBA to say to a company that there is so much concern about its programmes, the quality appears to be deteriorating and there are so many complaints about their


nature and content that it requires that company from now on to submit each programme to it before it is broadcast. Apparently, that does not appear in the Hunt report. I want to know whether the Government find any merit in and have any sympathy for that point of view.

Mr. John Browne: Is not the right hon. Gentleman confusing an important fact? Broadcasting over the air must not be confused with narrowcasting over cable. Therefore, his general concern is not appropriate. How much does he think it will cost for the whole country to be cabled by British Telecom, and who would pay?

Mr. Hattersley: There is great confusion because of absurd conventions of Treasury accounting. If it is possible to do so profitably in some areas privately, British Telecom could do it on the same basis over the same period—

Mr. John Garrett: In the same way.

Mr. Hattersley: In the same way, as my hon. Friend said. The difference would be that British Telecom would have the intention and aspiration to go on to cover other parts of the country—

Mr. John Browne: Where would it get the revenue?

Mr. Hattersley: Initially it would get the revenue that was available to, and apparently to be received by, private companies.
The second point that the hon. Member for Winchester made is equally important. I do not concede the point that because it is narrowcasting there is no reason why there should be any supervision of programme content. Anyone who has seen the programme content in other countries on cable must have a legitimate concern about the material put out.

Mr. John Browne: It is not the same type of cable.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not mind giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he would not talk to me all the time from a sedentary position. I want to explain to him why he is wrong.
There is a romantic view about cable that as long as we have the concept of freedom of choice, which in my view is not freedom of choice at all, all sorts of desirable things will come about, such as a 24-hour news service. If the hon. Gentleman considers the New York experience, he will see that the major 24-hour news service has collapsed through bankruptcy, but a gentleman called Ugly George prospers by transmitting low quality pictures of girls whom he has persuaded to undress in Central Park. I do not mind whether it is called broadcasting or narrowcasting. I do not want transmitted on British television low quality pictures of girls who have been persuaded to undress in Regents Park.
Before I am interrupted, let me say that nothing in the Hunt report, or in the Home Secretary's speech today, has convinced me that there will be adequate supervision. There is clearly a confusion between the standard expected of independent television companies and the need to have a key which theoretically enables some unpleasant programmes to be switched off. We have not had a clear statement from the Home Secretary whether the standards that we expect from the BBC and ITV will be required of the cable companies.

Mr. Julian Critchley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, whereas Ugly George succeeded in Manhattan, he failed in Edinburgh. That was not because of the girls' rectitude, but because of the prevailing east wind.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has more faith in the British climate than I have. My suspicion is that in warmer climes, in the sort of place that he inhabits, Ugly George might be very successful indeed. I do not want to name any of those military towns where he might find himself but—

Mr. Sheerman: Hon. Members may make light of this, but a serious point is being made. I was quite chilled, as I am sure other hon. Members were, by what the Home Secretary said. He said that the traditional safeguards on advertising, on British content and on taste and decency will go. If that is not what he said, I hope that I shall be corrected.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand exactly why my hon. Friend is confused. I have already tried to say, and I shall now say again, that it is by no means clear what the Home Secretary did say about the traditional standards of taste and decency. On the one hand he said that he wants them preserved and on the other that he will make some arrangements whereby people who do not want low standards and indecency can switch the television off by a mythical device. We are not clear what he believes.

Mr. Whitelaw: I stand, as the House knows, as firmly as anybody else for decent standards in our television programmes. I can be shown over the years to have done so. When I put forward various proposals for the House to consider, I am supposed to answer everything. If I do, I am told that I should not be prejudging the matter and if I do not I am told that I should. I cannot do both.

Mr. Hattersley: Let me try to explain why Labour Members think that the Home Secretary is remiss. I understand why he argues both sides of the case. However, when he appears to close down the option of all pre-vetting, he is making it clear that some undesirable programmes will be allowed. That is against the beliefs, wishes and principles of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: No, I shall not give way, I have given way about 11 times and I must continue.

Mr. Rathbone: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am misleading the House, I had better let him intervene.

Mr. Rathbone: It is not critical, but I think what the right hon. Gentleman has just said could be misunderstood. Just because prevetting is done away with does not mean that lower standards are condoned. There can be postvetting and franchises can be withdrawn for any period. That can be done for any transgression of the rules. There is no parallel between prevetting and the lowering of standards.

Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure of the sort of world in which the hon. Gentleman lives. Let me give him an example. A company with a 10-year cable franchise which has been running for five years may have two


options—one to go bankrupt immediately, and the other to risk the renewal of its franchise in five years' time. What does the hon. Gentleman think that it will do? It will lower the standards, bring in cheap and nasty material from outside and it will hope, as happens in the United States, that it can survive for another five years. To say that the possibility that a company will lose its franchise in five years will cause it to maintain its standards is romantic nonsense. To say that the renewal of the franchise is a sanction is the same as saying that there is no sanction.

Mr. Whitehead: If there are to be split franchises, as has now been widely leaked, and the longer franchise is for the operation of the cable system and the shorter one is for the provision of programmes, surely that will remove the sanction if the provision of programmes is inadequate.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course it will. That is why Labour Members want a statutory distinction between the cable layers and the programme companies. I made that clear 20 minutes ago. To allow them to operate in tandem is to give them an enormous power that will enable them to defy the standards that we attempt tentatively to lay down.
We want to see a regulation, not simply of the standards and quality of output but of the effect that cable will have on the established national programme producers. That is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman). Some form of regulation is essential if the BBC and ITV are not to suffer appallingly as a result of the freedom given to cable.
The Home Secretary gave an example. He said that the BBC and ITV are required to transmit 86 per cent. of British material. I think of that as being allowed to transmit only 14 per cent. of foreign material. If they are to compete with cable companies which can buy low budget, low quality foreign films which they can run for 100 per cent. of their time, the problems for the BBC and ITV will be enormous. I was going to say that they are so enormous that I fear that the next step will be that the BBC and ITV will start pressing for the right to show more foreign material. However, that is not the next step; it is today's step. The Home Secretary has announced already that he will consider the possibility of more foreign material going to ITV and BBC. I can see why, if they are to compete with the cable companies, that is necessary in equity, but the disaster that that would mean for the home industry is incalculable.
I am horrified that instead of that being a prospect for the future, about which we should all be afraid, the Home Secretary should have floated the idea today that there shall be more licence for more foreign products on the BBC and ITV.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the point that he has just made about equity is reinforced by what the Government are doing to the film industry? Again, the floodgates are being opened to foreign films and the Eady levy is being removed.

Mr. Hattersley: That is only obliquely relevant to what I have to say this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point.
My next point is intimately and directly related—the control of advertising. I hope that the Home Secretary was saying—it was not altogether clear, but perhaps that is because of the nature of today's consultation

exercise—that the advertising regulations which apply to ITV will apply to the cable companies. Again, it would be intolerable if the ITV companies, attempting to maintain adequate programmes, were forced to compete with cable companies which could flash advertisements on at any part of a programme and which could produce the sort of advertisements which the IBA would not pass for a moment.
If there are to be several advertising channels, whether broadcast or narrowcast, they must fulfil the same advertising criteria. Great problems will arise in the raising of advertising revenue for cable in any event. The evidence of the Advertising Association that there was an unlimited amount of advertising waiting to spring out and finance all sorts of desirable projects was pathetic and does not bear a moment's analysis. The fear will be that the only advertising that cable gets will be the sort of advertising no hon. Member wants to see, at times in a programme when no hon. Member wants to see it. I hope that the Home Secretary was saying that he will ensure that there will be some regulations to put both ITV and the cable companies on a common footing.
I hope that the Home Secretary has got his ears open—I believe that he has—not only to wishes and expressions of opinion from Labour Members but to those from people outside—the growing number of people—who are becoming more and more concerned about what cable will do to Britain if it is allowed to go on unregulated.
The claims for cable are made by people who insist that it is an addition to our traditional freedoms, who frankly confuse the idea of pushing buttons with more choice. The way that many companies will develop will not increase choice. I personally find something distasteful in all the vested interests surrounding cable's laissez-faire development, dressing up their case as if it were something to do with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the individual. In my view, it is nothing to do with that. It is to do, very often, with promoting cable in a way which meets sectional—not community—needs, which does not improve the quality of choice but improves the profits of some limited companies.
We want the cable revolution to meet the country's needs. That requires an amount of regulation, regulating the companies that lay the cables, the companies that transmit the broadcasts, and the broadcasts and advertisements themselves. We shall go on pressing for that to the White Paper and beyond.

Sir Paul Bryan: I declare my interest as a director of Granada Television.
Since our debate on cable on 20 April much has happened. Hunt has reported and, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we have been to countless seminars and we have been saturated with cable lore from scores of interested parties. Some of us have looked at cable in America. From what we have gleaned, we now have to decide whether we want cable television to be the means by which a cable system is established in this country.
My answer to that would be "Yes", provided, first, that our cable programmes can be as superior to American cable television programmes as our television is to its television, and, secondly, that cable television does not have the effect of lowering the quality of BBC and ITV. By that, I do not mean that they must be entirely insulated


from any technological change, any more than the BBC could be insulated from the healthy shock of the advent of ITV 25 years ago.
In the long run, we need cable for the reasons often and admirably expounded by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology. We must keep ahead in technology so that we can establish a modern industry, giving direct employment to thousands and indirect employment to many more. In the short run, cable should improve the lot of the viewer.
Before a recent visit to America, I was convinced that British television was the best in the world. Having been there, I remain so convinced. However, I have also discovered that, with the addition of cable, the American viewer is better off than his British counterpart here.
Andrew Neil, in a booklet, recently published and edited by him, called "The Cable Revolution", says:
It may hurt British pride to hear that the average American Cable viewer now has a far wider choice of quality programming to choose from than the average British viewer.
He then reviews in detail the choice available to a viewer in Manhattan at 9 o'clock on 7 June 1982 and that available to a viewer in London at that moment. In London he was offered the 9 o'clock news on BBC1, on BBC2 "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"—repeat—and on ITV "Minder"—repeat. The viewer in Manhattan had a choice of 27 programmes, which included five movies, three sports programmes, two plays, one ballet, one opera, one variety show, two documentaries, a soap opera, and three educational channels, plus two news channels and a programme on cooking.

Mr. Critchley: My hon. Friend has left out of his list soft porn, hard porn, and adventure, which I am told is the best of the lot.

Sir Paul Bryan: My hon. Friend may have studied these matters, but I shall continue with my speech.
As one flicks the switch through such a mass of programmes, one's general impression is that one never wants to see it. However, the viewer soon knows which channel he likes, and the net result, on a fully developed station, is a remarkable choice of programmes. One cannot get away from that.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps I may point out that the hon. Gentleman has also left out, as did Mr. Neil, what is available to the viewer in Des Moines compared with the viewer in, say, Coventry. The great advantage for the viewer in Coventry is that he gets as good a programme as the viewer in London. That same rule does not apply in the United States.

Sir Paul Bryan: That is correct. I said earlier that our system has to be better than the American system. In that, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, one is still tempted to ask whether there would be a demand for such a choice in this country. To my mind, the answer is given by the quite astonishing explosion in video tape recorders, which are now to be found in one in six British homes, according to the latest figures. No one doubts that within five years these will be as common as colour television sets in this country. One buys a video tape recorder for only one reason—more choice: more choice of the times at which to see programmes, and more choice of programmes.

Mr. Whitehead: Research shows that 85 per cent. of the use of video recorders is for films which are hired in the high street. That cuts into the home box office market, which Hunt believes will be the most profitable for cable television.

Sir Paul Bryan: I shall expand on that later.
I want to say a word on the important question whether cable television would damage the high standards of BBC and ITV. Financially, I do not believe that they would be substantially affected. The BBC would still be financed by the levy.
There remains the question whether ITV would lose significantly in advertising revenue to cable. American experience and every survey carried out in this country show that advertising revenue from cable is derisory, compared with the income enjoyed by the television companies here, with their monopoly franchises. On ITV, an advertiser has a shrewd idea of how many viewers will see his advertisement. On cable, with its many channels, the audience is fragmented, and presents an uncertain and therefore unattractive proposition to an advertiser. What is more, the very appeal of many of the cable channels is that they do not carry advertisements.
The main income of cable comes not from advertising, but from subscriptions: subscriptions from the viewers who take the basic service of 10 or 12 channels; premium payments from subscribers who are willing to pay more for a particular extra channel of their choice; and—where the cable system is fully developed—"pay-per-view" payments for individual programmes selected by the viewer. The business objective of the cable operator is to increase the number of subscribers rather than the number of advertisers.
To placate the BBC, as we have heard, the Hunt report has banned "pay-per-view" for the time being. That decision is based on the misconception that a cable company might outbid the BBC or the ITV for a national event.

Mr. Michael English: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, and I thank him for giving way. He said that the Government had given way to the BBC's view. I understood that the Government had given way to the broadcasting organisations—that is, the ITV companies and the IBA as well.

Sir Paul Bryan: I suspect that the BBC is fearful of the effect it will have on its satellite programme when it comes on in a few years' time.
I come back to what I was saying about cable possibly outbidding the ITV and BBC on a national event such as the Cup Final, thus denying to the general public events that they are accustomed to seeing without charge.
There is no difficulty in specifying events of that type for retention by the BBC and ITV. Moreover, there are many ways in which "pay-per-view" can be valuable to the cable companies without damaging the off-air companies. For example, the distributor of a feature film might be willing to let it be seen pre-release to a limited audience through "pay-per-view" for publicity purposes, whereas he would certainly not allow it to be exposed on a general network before it was shown in the cinemas.
Manchester United fans would be delighted to pay for the showing of away matches, but that would not be attractive as a general proposition to the BBC. The cable


operator might sponsor or produce his own programmes. At the moment, public broadcasting services can give most individual sporting events only limited coverage whereas, by "pay-per-view", that could be full coverage.
"Pay-per-view" in America is in its infancy. Only about 5,000 homes can receive it. Nevertheless, it is a rapidly expanding method of cable financing and it will be a major factor in future. Gus Hauser, the chairman of Warner, forecast that 20 million homes would receive such a service in five years' time.

Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas that may be true in America, where the sentence for piracy is $45,000 or three years in jail compared with a maximum fine of £50 here, there seems little future for that type of market in Britain until there is a radical change in our law?

Sir Paul Bryan: I shall deal with that point a little later.
I should like to stress once more that too little has been said in the general debate on cable about the place of the video tape recorder. By the time cable gets under way, the video recorder could easily have penetrated 80 per cent. of British homes. In other words, the penetration of those machines will be several times greater that that of cable.
It is impossible to forecast what effect that will have on the development of cable, but it is bound to be considerable. By the time video libraries are built up, the video tape recorders will be the perfect "pay-per-view". The viewer will be able to take his pick from literally thousands of titles and take them home for the weekend at no great cost. Moreover, the titles will not be confined to feature films and the like. They will cover every conceivable aspect of entertainment, education and "do-it-yourself". There will be choice on a scale that has never before been available on the television screen.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), piracy and the explosion in demand have thrown the video tape industry into temporary disarray. However, the Private Member's Bill that is to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) will put an effective check on piracy. It will be a question only of time before the trade is organised to offer the type of service that I have described.
When I was in Washington, I asked the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission what controls he would impose at the outset of a new cable television service. He answered "I would impose the absolute minimum. I would then add any regulations that experience proved to be necessary." That was the result of his experience.
That is also the approach of the Hunt committee. I applaud it. Paragraph 89 states:
We have already made clear the extent to which we think that cable programmes should conform to the traditional requirements as to taste and decency, and also that advertising should conform to the IBA code of advertising standards and practice.
It is a good start and an answer to those who complain that the BBC and ITV are being asked to compete with an utterly deregulated service.
I shall now deal with the difficult problem that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook raised. The regulating authority must consider how much overseas material should be allowed on the cable television channels. The 14 per cent. rule that operates fairly satisfactorily in the off-air services cannot be imposed across the board on a

cable station with, for example, 20 channels. A sports channel would probably be 100 per cent. home product, whereas a channel of the American box office type will be mostly American. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that a system that allows sufficient American material to sustain its programmes but which stimulates rather than kills our film industry must be worked out. That is not out of the question.
When trying to foresee the shape of things to come in Britain, we should take note of the American scene, but we should not be overinfluenced by it, for the two situations are very different. The cable television explosion in America was based on the use of an already existing cable system that had been put there for other reasons. We shall be starting almost from scratch with the consequent advantages and disadvantages.
The absence of advertising on many cable channels has proved attractive to an American audience already frustrated by the grossly excessive quantity of crude advertising that afflicts its television network. That will not apply here. American cable has much less competition from the video tape recorder which will affect the cable system in Britain.
One substantial advantage that we shall enjoy over the Americans is a simpler system of franchising. There a complicated mixture of State, city and FCC regulations can mean delays of literally years in the granting of franchises. It can involve reams of paperwork, legal presentation and far too much corruption.
The American system of having 30 low-powered satellites, from which a channel can be beamed down to the 4,000—plus cable operators, is a much cheaper way of distributing programmes than the trunk system for which we shall have to pay.
I look forward to my hon. Friend's forecast of the pace at which he hopes to see our cable system develop. One school of thought opts for caution, pilot schemes and so on. I believe that speed within reason is essential. It is a case of the chicken and the egg. While there are no programmes, there will be no subscribers; while there are no subscribers, there will be no programmes. Until the number of subscribers reaches a critical level, much money will have been lost on programme production; and many will have been discouraged from going into programme production.
The first years will be difficult ones. The sooner franchises can be allotted, the better. I suggest that in these early stages everything should be done to attract the vast investment that will be required. For example, until there is practical evidence that profits can be made in a reasonable time, the franchises should be for longer than the 10 years recommended in paragraph 87 of the Hunt report.

Mr. Whitehead: How long should they be for?

Sir Paul Bryan: I do not know, but longer than that.
At this stage it would be rash to lay down the obligation that some people have suggested—that a cable operator should be obliged to take on an unpromising area as well as a prime one. The condition dear to the IBA—that stations should be locally owned—should be avoided as it is both discouraging and ineffective.
Experience may show, as cable develops, that more rules, regulations and conditions are necessary, but my advice at the start is "When in doubt, cut them out".

Mr. Barry Sheerman: The debate on cable and satellite broadcasting has been marked by considerable confusion. Whether that confusion has been deliberately fostered is for hon. Members to judge.
There has been confusion between questions relative to cable and satellite technology and the rival merits of certain systems and questions relating to the future of broadcasting and the social and political implications of the revolution in communications that we are told is about to burst upon us. False dichotomies have been drawn between primitive, reactionary Luddites and backwoodsmen who are suspicious of the new technology and progressive, dynamic entrepreneurs who welcome change and expansion with optimism and courage. Coming from Huddersfield, where the Luddites were very strong, I hope that I shall not immediately be accused of being firmly in one camp.
There is also an undertone of fatalism—a sense that the coming of cable is an inevitable act of God to which we must accommodate as best we can. To believe that is to believe that Parliament is powerless, and if we convince ourselves of that democracy is a frail flower indeed. We are not the victims beneath the juggernaut of technological progress. If communications services in this country develop in a way that is detrimental to the public good, it will be because we have taken the wrong decisions.
If we are to act rationally and responsibly, however, we must allow time to acquaint ourselves with all the issues involved, both technological and social. This is at the heart of most of my hon. Friends' questioning of the Government's undue haste. If we are really at the beginning of a new age, we should not be called upon to create the world in six days. We must make haste very slowly. There are very good arguments for taking more time. That is not something that we on the radical side of the House often urge—we usually want to do things very quickly—but in this case more time is needed.
We must ask ourselves what we intend to achieve before we decide on a particular course. Does the British public want an expanded communications service, and, if so, what kind? We have heard very little from the Home Secretary or from any Conservative Member about whether anyone actually wants the new technology, diversity and competition that we are assured will benefit all mankind. Indeed, a recent survey showed that there has been a decline in television viewing in Britain recently. We have not yet even assessed the cause of that.

Mr. John Browne: There has been the advent of the video recorder. It is a new industry, so how can anyone give accurate figures?

Mr. Sheerman: I take that point. I am simply saying that the demands of the consumer have not yet been gauged. Viewers may be dissatisfied with the quality and variety of material at present offered. The advent of the video recorder may have made a substantial dent in the market for traditional television. Indeed, I was told recently that 70 per cent of the Asian community in Bradford now have their own video recorders and watch films in their own languages most of the time. To some of us, that is a disturbing change in viewing behaviour in this country. On the other hand, people may have switched to less passive interests, which is surely to be welcomed.
Steps must be taken to ascertain the facts. Viewing needs may be adequately satisfied by the existing four

channels. The proposed satellite channels coming on stream in 1986 may meet all the requirements that we can envisage. There may be a demand for data transmission services, two-way communication systems and commercial transactions that could usefully be provided by cable while leaving the provision of programmes of entertainment, news, current events and so on to the existing television authorities.
Unless the appropriate consumer research is carried out to discover what people really want, how can we answer those questions? I do not think that they have been seriously considered at all. Are we to be ruled by vague intuitions or, more probably, by crude commercial interests in reaching these decisions, or shall we allow reason to prevail and to govern our decisions? Hon. Members will no doubt have noted that a recent small-scale survey showed that, although the public were mildly interested in the idea of an expanded television service, they were not at all interested in footing the bill for it.
It sometimes seems all to easy to invent a new technology but very difficult to invent a need for it. We are in danger of forgetting that now, and in the future, the entire broadcasting network must exist for the benefit of the public. Television services must develop and adapt to public needs. It is not for the public to be moulded to the needs of a wildly proliferating television network that they did not want in the first place. The new technology was invented to serve the public. Yet we behave as though the public had been invented to serve the requirements of the new technology. The Minister is a leading advocate of information technology, but he sometimes seems to get those two aspects of the question somewhat out of kilter.

Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument, but before the existence of the telephone there was no great demand for such a service. Indeed, even when it was introduced, many people thought that it had no real future. It is only after a great new technological development has arrived that people see the benefits offered by it. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there is a great deal of doubt about the future. That being so, should we not try to be as nonrestrictive as possible and allow as many developments as possible to proliferate so that people can choose? Those services for which there is no demand will surely wither away.

Mr. Sheerman: Sometimes when I am sitting in a room I wish that I could disinvent the telephone, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to get the balance right. I shall return later to that point and to the social and political implications of the new technology.
First, however, I wish to examine more closely the technical and commercial considerations, which are very complex. We face a multiplicity of choices at a time when technology itself is developing at a bewildering rate. The crucial point is that development is taking place at such a rate that a wrong decision now will probably put this country in the wrong technological age for the rest of the century. Even with careful and painstaking consideration we may find that we have made the wrong choice, but without such consideration we are almost bound to do so.
In satellite technology, we have the choice of adopting the multiplex analogue components system,, favoured by the Part committee, or the PAL system favoured by the BBC. The PAL system has already been adopted by many


European countries. If the MAC system, which I understand has already been accepted, is adopted in this country, it will isolate Britain from the rest of Europe. That would have serious financial implications as it would limit the BBC's scope for exporting its services. I believe that the choice of that system will seriously undermine the viability of satellite television before it even comes into operation.
A choice must also be made between individual reception of direct broadcasting by satellite through home receiving equipment and community reception via the cable system. In the short term, individual reception might be cheaper, but ultimately community reception would probably be more cost effective, especially in the more densely populated urban areas. Community reception would also obviate the need for the unsightly proliferation of dish aerials that one sees in the United States and which are certainly no blessing to environmental beauty. On the other hand, the facility to provide for individual reception of DBS could stimulate industry to produce increasingly sophisticated and effective household receiving equipment. Handled correctly, that could be of great benefit to the British economy as a whole.
One thing is certain. The introduction of satellite and cable technology will not by itself drag the British economy out of the stagnant mire into which the Government's policies have sunk it. I believe sometimes that the Information Technology Year and the tremendous gung-ho attitude towards cable is an illusion designed to take our minds off the reality of the grim fall of 15 per cent. in our manufacturing production since the Government came to power.
American experience shows that the provision of cable services is costly and there is no guarantee of success. The Prime Minister may like to believe that the British economy will be revived by the simple expedient of running copper cable across half the country. That is touchingly naive. CBS Cable folded this year having sustained a loss of $47 million in 11 months. Only one company in the United States, Home Box Office, which is a film subscription company, is making a reasonable profit. British entrepreneurs will doubtless take note. The Prime Minister's goose is unlikely to come up with any golden eggs at either the next election or the one after.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It might be cooked.

Mr. Sheerman: That is correct. The unseemly haste with which the Government are precipitating us into this new electronic nirvana is likely to prove disastrous in the long run. If we are to adopt a system of cable technology, we must ensure by all the best possible methods that it is right. The system that we choose will have to last for a quarter of a century.
The choice is between coaxial fibre cable and fibre optic cable. Vested interests seem to support coaxial cable. By showing a preference for that system, the Government are demonstrating once again their capacity to gaze fearlessly as far as the end of their nose. The fibre optic system is more expensive because of the cost of amplifying signals in optic form. It is reliably predicted that that will soon cease to be the case.
Fibre optic systems are technically superior and may soon prove to be the right answer. They carry no fire risk, are more compact and versatile, are easier to route round difficult corners and less susceptible—I am sorry that my

hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not here—to bugging, are practically impervious to electrical interference, can carry a greater volume of traffic than coaxial cable systems and will also allow the introduction of an inter-active communication system.
The most important point is that Great Britain leads the field in the manufacture of optic fibre. If we choose this technology for our national network, we shall boost our export market in fibre optic technology, and that would be profoundly important.

Mr. Brinton: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that one can perfectly well combine coaxial cable and fibre optic in their present state of development anc achieve inter-active operation, as he has described? When fibre optic catches up in three or four years' time with its switching mechanism, which is the problem at the moment, the system can be converted comparatively cheaply.

Mr. Sheerman: I take that point, but all the information I have from the experts is that that would be a clumsy and difficult way to do it. It is better to start as one means to continue and choose a fibre optic system.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: What switching facilities are available on fibre optic?

Mr. Sheerman: The technology is complex and fast moving. The experts who advise me suggest that that is a problem that will be solved in months not years.

Mr. John Garrett: Within the next few weeks British Telecom will place orders for switches capable of operating through fibre optics to groups of 30 homes at a time. That is a useful step towards a fibre optic system.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
The choice of coaxial cable would not benefit our economy. The export potential of coaxial cable is virtually non-existent. There are two ways of distributing cable services. The pilot schemes which have been carried out in this country have utilised the American tree-and-branch technology which is extremely limited in its application, and which I do not think will be considered seriously.
The alternative is the star system, which was developed mainly in this country and Japan. It is far more adaptable and has a far greater capacity. If research discloses a genuine demand for inter-active communication in Great Britain, we should clearly need to engineer a cable system on the star pattern.
If we are to secure for the United Kingdom the economic and commercial benefits which can be derived from the introduction of cable, we should choose a system capable of expansion to meet future demands. With their precipitate and myopic commitment to copper cable, the Government seem once again to be about to impair the export potential and long-term prospects of British industry and to dissipate the prospects of future economic success. I do not believe that the Government intend to do that, but that will be the result of their proposals.
There are a number of fundamental matters underlying the debate. Are we convinced that in planning the introduction of the technology we are fulfilling a public need? If so, are we confident that the proposals contained in the Hunt report will provide adequate safeguards for the


welfare of all sections of society? It is blatantly clear that the Government are not interested in the public's opinions and desires.
The proposed cable network is not designed as a public utility. It is to be financed wholly from private money and consequently it will be governed solely by commercial criteria. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) said that commercial television could not be received by all houses in Great Britain for some years, but the enterprise was pioneered with the intention that they all would. The present proposal is different. If we have 30 channels available to us at any time, will our freedom of choice increase thirtyfold? No one is deluded to that extent.
Most channels will offer the cheapest, imported trivia that they can get away with. The market will eventually colour the output of the entire television network, including that of the public service channels. When we speak passionately about this matter, we do so because we have the best broadcasting system in the world. That fine achievement and output is at stake.
A comparison was made recently by a producer in America who said that the difference between American television and British television was that in Great Britain money is provided to make television but that in America television is provided to make money. That is an important fundamental difference between the two systems. The Government's proposals will not serve audiences in all their diversity but will maximise them. The IBA will fight for advertising revenue with the cable sector. The BBC will struggle to justify its licence by maintaining its place in popularity ratings. It will be expedient to provide material which is broadly acceptable in a superficial way rather than risk the transmission of programmes which are deeply satisfying to the various minorities.
The future is gloomy for British actors and writers who work on television. Unless a strict quota is imposed on the import of foreign programmes, outlets for British talent will be restricted to a crippling extent. Nick Mellersh of Rediffusion states that cable will not generate enough British production to fill one channel, let alone 30.
The Hunt report, with its deceptively open-minded, laissez-faire approach, has not suggested any mechanism that might actively promote diversity, creativity and flair. It merely gives hope and sustenance to the people who would provide us with an undemanding diet of old films, soggy soap operas, repeat sit-corn and commercial claptrap, perhaps leavened by a little pornography which we can lock away from the children or the domestics, according to our social class—or perhaps our children, being more at ease than we are with electronic gadgetry, will lock it away from us.
The television actor Peter Bowles suggests that we might charge a levy on every foreign programme transmitted on all television networks to go towards a development fund for independent programme makers based in this country, who would then be adequately funded to compete in the market place. We should seriously consider the suggestion. Let us hope that we have time to do so. Even with the assurances that we have been given, the Government still seem hell-bent on pushing the change through. Let us hope that we also have time to

consider other suggestions from actors, writers, producers and other creative contributors to the British media who have made it the best in the world.
Let us not be under an illusion that the regulatory body envisaged by Hunt will effectively guard the public interest. Now is the time for an ancient relative in need of a quiet sinecure or a Tory tired of the responsibility of being a wet to offer his services to the new cable authority. The duties will not be onerous. There will be no fuss about exerting control over the quality of programmes and advertising matter; the authority is merely to
keep in touch with what is going on".
It will not have to supervise a quota for imported programmes, foster British talent or encourage innovation; it will merely
keep an eye on the amount of foreign material".
It will not have to attempt to ensure that programme content is not offensive; it will wait patiently to receive complaints. We are told—unnecessarily—that it will
remain in the background".
There are no requirements for balance, but local authorities, religious bodies, political parties and foreigners—who are all inclined to be dangerously unbalanced—will not be allowed directly to participate in the ownership of companies operating cable systems. With that proviso, cable will be free to air whichever prejudices it chooses, unhampered by authoritarianism.
I said that if we were to embark on the massive and costly enterprise of cabling the entire British Isles we should choose a system that allowed the development of inter-active services, if that is what the public demand. That is commercially and economically right. It is impossible to tell how demand will develop. But before we rush to embrace the new technology, we should think a little about what it might mean. Peter Ackroyd recently wrote:
Every revolution has its victims and casualties".
The new two-way technology could replace the postal services, make shopping excursions a thing of the past, enable people to transact business from home and abolish the communal workplace. It could totally obviate the need for social contact. I am reminded of E. M. Forster's novella "The Machine Stops", which depicts a society where
The clumsy system of public gatherings had long since been abandoned".
We are on the edge of a revolution; it may greatly enhance our economic well-being and our capacity to communicate, but this may be the start of a black time, where the artificial replaces real information and where the standards and qualities that we most value are sacrificed. We must steadfastly refuse to be precipitated in the latter direction.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. At least 16 hon. Members wish to catch my eye. If every speaker takes 26 minutes, only a few will be called.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I am not a liberal—not even a Hampstead liberal. I shall never be described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence as a nineteenth-century liberal, which is the flavour adopted by our great party since 1974. I am a high Tory.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Only today.

Mr. Critchley: I have been everything in my time.
As a high Tory at this moment, I believe in the defence of our institutions, in which, for the purposes of the debate, I include the BBC, the IBA and the programme companies. I fear that entertainment-led cable might be the end of broadcasting as we know it.
I wish to focus on four points—regulation, equipment, programming and production. The other night I attended the Granada lecture at the Guildhall. It was dinner and not lunch, and I was pleased to have it. Lord Hunt stated that if we want cable it will survive only with the minimum of regulation. For that reason, I am in favour of more regulation than he has proposed. I wish to keep the standard of the cable programmes similar to that which we at present enjoy in what is, with some exceptions, the best broadcasting service in the world.
I agree with those, including Lord Weinstock, who assert that were we to go ahead with existing technology foreigners would become rich at the expense of our technology and of British manufacturers. That may be an argument for delay.
I suggest a quota of 30 per cent. for foreign programmes, with no more than 10 per cent. coming from any one country. Cable operators should be obliged to order programmes from British producers. They should not just broadcast; they should inspire and commission programmes to be made here.

Mr. Gorst: Is it practicable to expect the British film industry to produce 70 per cent. of the films required?

Mr. Critchley: Whether my proposals are practicable is for the House to decide. I am suggesting amendments to the Hunt proposals which might at least improve the standards of cable television.
I read to my horror that 11,000 American television programmes are stored in a Californian Fort Knox ready to be sold to British cable operators—a lifetime of "Starsky and Hutch". Were the 11,000 programmes to be unloaded upon a virgin Britain, only rich Americans would become richer. There is a strong argument for a quota.
I revert to my high Toryism in the defence of institutions. We wish to defend the broadcasting institutions from those who might devalue the services that they offer. No fair comparison can be made between broadcasting and Fleet Street newspapers. Newspapers have never been accorded the regulation and control that Parliament has always exercised over the broadcasters—BBC and IBA. We cannot argue "Give the people what they want". I do not believe in giving the people what they want. I am sufficiently Tory and sufficiently Reithian—although I am not a Scot—not to fall for that element of the Liberal heresy. One newspaper of the character of The Sun is one too many, and I wish to see our broadcasting standards maintained.

Mr. Clement Freud: I welcome the Hunt report. Unlike the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I think that it is good because it is clear and, unlike the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), it is short.
The report is a good thing because British industry can benefit from cable television at a time when the creation

of jobs must be a priority. Not only will cable television create jobs—a conservative estimate is above 20,000—but it has already created a substantial number. Those of us who have been invited to lunches, dinners, seminars and meetings and received letters, circulars and glossy catalogues about cable television have provided opportunites for chefs, waiters, printers and designers as well as for doormen, who tell us to go this way or that. If that is a foretaste of what cable television will provide, I welcome it. Let me tell the House that no one will become tremendously rich as a result of cable television. If one goes to the other side of the Atlantic, as I did recently, one learns that the disenchantment factor with cable television is exceedingly high. About 30 per cent. of those who subscribe one year opt out the next. The industry in America has not yet covered enough ground to create a long-term boom.
I have always listened with interest to Opposition Members who complain bitterly about "licences to print money" and who oppose measures because others might become inordinately rich as a result of them. I have never found any reason why people should not become rich, especially because, as they do, others mount the bandwagon and gather wealth as they go.
Quality—a word on which much verbiage has been spent so far—is crucial to this debate. If cable television shows the four existing channels and the quality of the programmes is poor, so will the viewing figures be poor. I was astonished to hear the Home Secretary's contention that he received many letters about Channel 4 and that much anxiety was expressed when we all know that nobody watches Channel 4. We seem to be being persuaded that the viewing figures are nil and that for nobody who watches there are 1,000 who write Letters to the Home Secretary complaining about bad language on Channel 4.
I wish to see a minimum of regulations because we already have sufficient laws. Cable television will be bound by the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 and by the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I can never quite understand the anxiety of those who complain about seeing something on television which may be offensive when they can see page 3 of The Sun and walk through Soho and see obscene pictures; there is genuinely overt obscenity in our towns and villages. If someone buys cable television, pays to have his house linked to the system and finds the porno-channel, which Heaven knows is not easy to find—unless one is a bright child—I cannot see that we have much to worry about in the way of perverting public morals.
I hesitate to support the origination of yet another controlling body. The IBA has done a great job after a difficult start. If it is the will of the House that there should be yet another quango set up to control this new industry, I hope that it will be similar to the IBA, which has expertise. Vigilance is required, and the IBA knows about viligance. It knows also that promises that are made in franchise applications tend to be breached. The IBA found out how to deal with that. What is crucial is that the authority retains the ultimate sanction —to withhold or to withdraw a franchise.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) to draw attention to the ludicrously ineffectual punishment that we have for piracy. The hon. Gentleman referred to a Private Member's Bill that seeks to deal with the problem. That is true, and I am a sponsor


of that Bill. However, I still think that it is wrong that piracy, which is as rife in Britain as anywhere in the world, is punished in so paltry a manner. I am surprised that the Department of Trade, the Home Office or the Department of Industry, in the form of the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, who is now on the Government Front Bench, choose not to introduce quick, effective legislation. If ever there was a cause which was wrong for a Private Member's Bill, with all the difficulties, queues and problems that they face, this would seem to be it.
Installations must be independent of programme making. I was fascinated to read the speech which was delivered in another place by Lord Glanusk, who has been in the other place for 34 years. He made his first speech last Tuesday. Presumably one looks forward to the year 2016 when he will make his second speech. He said that 96 per cent. of all houses in this country are connected to the main drains. He asked whether anyone had considered the viability of putting cable through the sewerage system. That is not necessarily an ideal method but it is one that should be considered. Lord Glanusk's speech, after 34 years of silence, is probably not a bad speech to read once more.
I know little of the relative merits of coaxial copper cable and fibre optics, but I know that fibre optics are made in the United Kingdom. It is high time to introduce some United Kingdom input into the many forms of television. Video tapes and video recorders come to us from other countries. If we use fibre optics, they will come from our own national industry and we shall be helping to increase the prosperity of Britain.
Liberals believe in choice. We have heard talk about 11,000 programmes being held in some televisual Fort Knox. But each of us can watch only one programme at a time. There are now four good channels of British television. We need have no great fear of having no quality programmes to choose from. The marketing of video tapes will be extended. Quite soon, we shall probably be able to obtain them in filling stations, just as people can in other countries, so I am not too worried about the great amount of bilge that might come to us, because I doubt whether it will find a ready audience. If private enterprise is prepared to put up the capital and take the commercial risks, we should not stand in the way.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is not often that I can say that I have much more in common with the liberal view of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) than with that of the newly discovered high Tory on these Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). It is about the only subject upon which I find my hon. Friend a high Tory, and it is a rum do. This sort of debate leads to strange bedfellows.
I thoroughly agree with the Government's intention to introduce cable. I do not regard it as an exercise only in television. Judging from the debate, one would imagine that that was the sole reason for having cable in Britain. However, it is not. The only reason for cable television is that it is one way of helping to finance the cabling of Britain. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) no doubt wants the cabling to be carried out by the State, or by British Telecom. That suits him and his Socialist Luddite mind. With all his

fears, he sounded very like someone warning us of the awful terrors of commercial television. The same rubbish also goes for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).
We are not talking about something that is completely unregulated. I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot—the high Tory—for thinking that we shall be flooded by rubbish from California. Such an organisation is not being set up. As it is a British system, there will be an authority. An authority will say that someone can have a cable provided that certain criteria are satisfied. The cable operator will then make an offer. If he transgresses that offer and floods the screen with porn or goes back on the programmes that he said he would provide, he has had it. His programme will be watched and he will have to submit everything in advance. That is tedious for him, and he knows that at the end he will be for the chop.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to be interrupted, because I am making a serious point. Mr. Speaker asked us to be brief, and I have far too much too say anyway. The hon. Gentleman will only lead me astray.

Mr. Mitchell: I want to know what happens to that person's cable. Does he have to dig it up and take it home with him?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I would not have given way if I had known what the hon. Gentleman was going to ask.
I think that the television system in Britain is pretty good. I have worked on both sides of it. Indeed, I must declare an interest that I should have mentioned earlier. I am a non-executive director of London Weekend (Holdings) Ltd., and a consultant to Philips Business Systems. Having got that off my chest, I remind the House that I have seen both sides of British television at work. I have been employed by them.
The system is pretty good, but we should stop the awful trumpeting—"Britain leads the world"—that reminds me of Lord Beaverbrook of the Daily Express. We are pretty good at leading the world in good trash or rubbish on television. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is really an old-fashioned Socialist about such matters. I thought that it would be interesting to look in the New York Times and to see the type of fare offered to the poor downtrodden American viewer in New York City. There is no mention of porn in the Monday prime time cable highlights and there is no mention on Tuesday, and so on. We are on short commons compared with the variety offered in America. The Americans can get Sadlers Wells twice a week. On Monday, a typical night, there were four arts programmes, two plays, eight films, and sport is on two channels. There was also ordinary off-air television, including "Smiley's People", "The Charterhouse of Parma"—something to do with a Stendhal novel—and, for good measure, "MASH".

Mr. Critchley: A great novel.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Americans have got a great series. Nothing in Britain can possibly compare with the rich variety and quality offered to those in New York City, through both ordinary off-air broadcasting and cable. That is pathetic. People are probably becoming bored with British television, because it pumps out too many boring programmes. We are discussing not only


television, but cable, and the entertainment that it can provide. I agree with Peter Jay when he invites us to look at the provision of entertainment on cable. An analogy can be drawn with bookshops. Indeed, Hunt does not close his eyes to that point. Cable releases us from the tight control that we would not tolerate for a moment if it were applied to the printed word. Indeed, it was once applied to the printed word. Church and State told us what to do. The country was full of high Tories. At that time, the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot will remember that. The great British public was allowed to read only certain things.
Someone remarked that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology should go down in history as the Caxton of modern information technology, because he has made it more possible for the ordinary British citizen to exercise his choice about what he wants to look at and at what time he wishes to do so. After all, he is allowed to go into a bookshop without being censored by a guardian authority that tells him the books that he should buy and the time that he should read them. Therefore, there is an analogy.
We deal appallingly with our minorities. As has been said, the people in Huddersfield cannot see programmes in their own languages. If someone in America wants to see an Italian programme, he can do so. In my wife's home town of Fresno, California, there are many people from Mexico. They like to hear their own language. They like to watch plays in Spanish. They can jolly well see them, because they have their own programmes. There are no programmes for minority groups in Britain. I think not only of Asians and the black community, but of many others.
I am desperately fond of fishing. There are no decent sports programmes in Britain that cater for those who are interested not only in watching the programme but in being instructed on how to improve their skill. There should be more fishing programmes on television.
That is not so say that I do not believe that everything that Hunt proposes is right. However, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook repeated one of the most ridiculous canards— probably principally inspired by the BBC—that cable will be socially divisive, unfair to rural areas and favour the rich. The BBC is so nice and has so many intelligent people at the top that it would be churlish of me to take such criticisms seriously. However, it comes up in funny forms.
The BBC never hangs back. Before the Second World War television was for the rich and for those in London. After the war, when people wanted better quality radio in remote areas the BBC scattered its licence money plentifully on the local radio stations in our more densely populated uran areas. What is more, it competed with ITV for the ratings. Ultimately, the BBC gradually caught up with the needs of the minority groups. That is true of anything. However, that will not happen if it is planned. If people say that such things must be managed by the State and at the time of the State's choosing, it is like saying to Mr. Morris that the car is a very powerful machine that will kill people and that we must plan its use.
Everything that has benefited modern society began by catering for a minority. That minority has largely been composed of those who have got the money to spend on what they want. To begin with, refrigerators were expensive. Indeed, motor cars, washing machines and television sets were also expensive. As with tape

recorders, so with cable. If time is allowed for demand to express itself, the wider needs of a greater number of people will eventually be served.
Some reasonable fears have been expressed by those whom I have come across in industry. I am concerned about the lack of limit on the amount of advertising. There is not an endless crock of gold at the end of the advertising world. I agree that new sources of advertising will be attracted. Indeed, the Sunday supplements attracted new sources. However, Hunt has doubts about this issue. I ask the Government not to rule out "pay-as-you-view". If the existing companies find themselves short of revenue, it will be serious. Whatever code is adopted, it should be flexible enough for the cable companies not to be wholly dependent on advertising.
I am not keen on the proposed no limit on the amount of overseas programmes. ITV is limited to 14 per cent. of foreign programmes, and it should not be put at an unfair disadvantage. The proposed ban on ITV companies becoming owners, or at least majority shareholders, of cable companies should not necessarily be adopted. At any rate, ITV should be allowed to seek opportunities in this area.
We should not deny to ITV companies the right to enter into commercial arrangements with the cable operators as providers of programmes. The BBC has told me that there are areas of overlap between broadcasting off-air services, DBS and cable. They overlap because the programme providers want a share in the money generated by all three services. Therefore, the BBC and ITV will need to be involved, particularly ITV, which, unlike the BBC, has no licence fee to buttress its finances and which must operate within entrepreneurial financial disciplines.
Most of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East said about the technology of cable is wrong. It is important that the Government should encourage an early start, but on the right technological basis. A balance must be struck. If we go ahead too quickly on the basis of, say, the American tree-and-branch technology, which is now ready and could be ordered off the shelf, we shall be swamped, because it will be a cheap technology that will soon be out of date and bang will go any opportunities for British industry. We are all pretty well united on that point. I know that Rediffusion does not want to go ahead on the basis of such technology. Standards must therefore be set that prevent that.
On the other hand, if we delay until all these wonderful problems are sorted out, we shall be left behind. As in all things, perfection is the enemy of the good. Nothing is more likely to stimulate investment and lead to the development of fibre optics than for a start to be made. Paper plans prepared by politicians are just the stuff that lead to procrastination—and this country certainly knows how to do that. In such a climate, industry and private finance will wait until the politicians have sorted things out.
The economic development committee for the electrical engineering industry says some wise things in its report, which we ought to heed. If we do not, we shall make some serious mistakes. It states:
We note the Hunt Committee's recommendations; we do not comment on them, except to say that the worst decision would be to procrastinate. To delay the start of cable TV systems might give United Kingdom manufacturers time to do some more development work; but without the opportunities of an expanding


United Kingdom market, and the knowledge of the administrative framework determining the characteristics of that market, progress would be half hearted.
The people on that committee are in the business, and they should know. The committee adds:
Immediately, the benefits of fibre optic cable do not outweigh the costs except for a minority of cable TV systems applications … For Government to make the use of optical fibre cable mandatory throughout would be to raise the cost to uncommercial levels, and unreasonably delay the introduction of cable TV systems … We would not, therefore, advocate a rigid approach on the lines reported to be being developed in France where it seems likely that a 'star' system with the maximum use of optical fibre cable will be mandatory. We would, however, expect all cable TV systems to meet certain requirements.
One of our requirements should be the star system, subject to certain definitions of what that means. Although this is extremely technical, it should put us on the right road.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend say something about the length of the franchise?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yes. I shall quote from a letter that I received from a gentleman who was general manager of the European operation of the United States Jerrold company and who is now manager director-designate of a new company being established by well known companies in the United Kingdom. He is concerned about the recommendation that the franchise should be eight to 10 years, and he adds:
A cable system typically takes five years to build and an initial ten-year franchise will only provide the operator with a maximum of five years' full revenues while many of his costs will have been incurred at day one … A second, and potentially far more damaging, effect of a short franchise period will be that this will encourage the construction and installation of the cheapest systems possible since no commercial organisation will be able to take a longer view. This is certain to lead to a flood of imports of cheap conventional technology".
Let us establish the technological requirement and give those who are prepared to invest their money a fair crack of the whip. If it means a franchise longer than eight to 10 years, we should be prepared to give it to them.
I congratulate the Government on the initiatives already taken. I hope that they will adopt some of the suggestions that I and other hon. Members have made. They should certainly take them into account, because they reflect the genuine concern that has been expressed by those who work in the broadcasting industry and who have rendered good service to our country. If those suggestions are adopted, it should be possible to create new investment in the cabling of Britain—one of the more exciting ventures now facing us.

Mr. Michael English: I fear that this is bound to be a somewhat superficial debate; most of us are restricted because of the time available. The very nature and complexity of the subject compared with one debate on the Floor of the House also leads to the conclusion that we shall be somewhat superficial. I therefore hope that, between now and the publication of the White Paper, the Select Committee on Home Affairs will take an interest in this complex matter, to which in this debate none of us can refer in any great detail.
The Hunt report is also rather superficial, even though it took longer than we can today. I do not blame Lord Hunt for that. He reached the highest rank in the British Civil Service and is now a high ranking French civil servant in

his capacity as British chairman of a French nationalised bank; he is a functionnaire. It was asking much to expect three people to cover the complexities of this subject in much less than a year, because I believe that the committee was set up only in April.
The Government seem to be proposing that we go about this matter in an almost opposite way to the French. I understand that the French are swamping the town of Biarritz with all sorts of equipment and trying out all sorts of ideas, so that at the end of two or three years the French Government will say "All France will do this". I do not think that they have yet decided on a particular system, but they will do so. If, as a result, they are able to tell French industry what it can sell to Germany and the rest of the EEC, and if we cannot, we shall know whose system is the better.
The Government are taking a tremendous risk. They are making the assumption that if we go ahead quickly without that depth of investigation, we shall be able to sell our technology to Europe, but, in the light of all that has happened to British industry in the past, I have an awful feeling that they may get it wrong. In the debate, we do not seem to have made a sharp enough distinction between the technology and the ownership and programming implications of what is undoubtedly a somewhat new world.
We cannot stop the advance of cable television and I do not want to do so. I do not want to stop the advance of cable broadcasting, narrowcasting—or whatever one may wish to call it—nor do I want to stop the advance of inter-active cable. I have good reasons. In television, cable can provide what has not been provided in the past. In Britain, we have absolutely failed to provide local programmes. We had local radio stations in the 1920s, but they were abolished by the BBC because it was set up as a unitary corporation covering the whole country. Local radio stations did not appear again until the 1960s.
We have never yet had local television in the way that the United States has it. As a result of the setting up of the ITA, as it then was, and the independent companies, we have regional programming but we have never yet had local programmes. In the United States, a city the size of Nottingham would probably have two local television channels apart from being able to use the national network. We have failed in this respect.
Local broadcasting is popular—at least among people outside central London. People are listening to their local stations—be they public service or commercial—and they are taking a large share of the total radio audience. It is not so much whether Covent Garden opera is broadcast but whether the Huddersfield amateurs can be broadcast. People should be able to watch Rochdale Hornets rather than only a "rugger" match at Twickenham. All those programmes are highly desirable, but people should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to see a national match or their friends playing in their own locality. Local broadcasting expands choice and it would be foolish for hon. Members to say that it does not.
I am in favour of getting on with cable as quickly as we can, but I am not in favour of completely ignoring what is a change in society. After all, it took about 50 years to introduce the printing press into Britain after it had been invented in Germany. We need not take so long with cable. There is a balance in these matters.
I should like to consider some of the points about ownership and licensing in the Hunt report. Again, typical


of the highest Governmental and Civil Service minds in our land is the suggestion that licensing should be done centrally. We are back to centralism again. I can see the desirability of not having the great wayleave arguments that occur in the United States whereby local authorities battle it out to give franchises. Surely there is a happy medium in these matters. Surely the local authority should not be totally excluded. The Association of District Councils does not think so, and there is no reason why it should be so.
A local authority knows more about what lies under its streets than any person. We have every reason for involving local authorities in what is proposed. On the engineering aspect, the local authorities know what cables and pipes lie under their streets. I offer the Minister planning authority as an analogy. Local authorities deal with the initial planning application, but there is a right of appeal to the central authority, in that case the Department of the Environment. It would seem to me not beyond the wit of man to create a dual system which would allow some share of influence to the local authority and some share of control to central Government.
No one can be completely happy with the present way in which the IBA hands out its franchises. It is done almost secretly. It does not hold public hearings, as happens in the United States.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: It does.

Mr. English: The IBA holds consultative meetings at which the people it invites may speak. The IBA then discusses the matter with the franchise applicant in total secrecy. It then goes away again, and in total secrecy from the franchise applicant it decides what to do. The position is different from the United States, and if the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) does not realise it he should go away and check before he takes part in this debate. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement in the present method of giving out franchises. If that is so, let us work out a rather better method.
With regard to ownership, Hunt, because it is rather a superficial report, has not distinguished between the reasons for some of his decisions. He says, for example, that a local authority should have no share. If we mean the ownership of the cables, I can see every reason for a local authority having a share. I do not mind whether it is a Conservative-controlled or a Labour-controlled authority. Local authorities are not incapable of dealing with the engineering involved.
An interesting analogy is the commencement in Britain of electrical distribution, the commencement of the telephone service and the commencement of the gas service. They began in the way that the Government propose for cable, higgledy-piggledy and all over the place. Some started in central London and some in other cities. They were put together as a nationalised network not by radical Socialists but by Conservative and Liberal Governments because they needed to be a complete national network. Some were started by local authorities, and some of those services continued to be operated by some local authorities until well after the war.
There are good reasons for allowing local authorities to participate. Hunt says "No", because he does not want churches, political parties or local authorities in on the act but he has in mind programmes. I am thinking of engineering. Hunt did not make the distinction.
The Secretary of State went out of his way to say that the Government would not require cable operators to be separate from the programme providers. That is well and good, but if they happen to be, what is wrong with local authorities taking part in cable provision?
Another important point is minority interest, even if it were the programme company. Surely a local authority is at least as well informed about its area as any other organisation. I cannot see the objection to a local authority having a minority interest. If we are to allow foreign minority interests, why can we not allow domestic minority interests, even if they happen to consist of elected representatives and their officials?
I should like to know what minority interest is proposed. Technically, a minority interest is up to 49 per cent. and some local radio companies are 40 per cent. owned by foreign interests—English-speaking foreign interests though they may be but foreign in the technical sense of the word.
It is usually held in industry that if somebody holds between 10 and 20 per cent. of the company he has the beginnings of a powerful interest. But 40 per cent., especially when all the other shareholdings are smaller in individual amount, would usually be considered to be a dominant interest. It is not desirable that cable, with all its social implications, should be dominated by foreign interests.
Hunt has completely missed out the issue of local press monopolies. Hunt did not see any reason why the press should not have minority interests in cable companies. I agree with that, but Hunt never discussed local monopolies. I do not mind in the slighest if the Leicester Mercury has a share in Nottingham cable. If the Leicester Mercury wants to protect its share of advertising revenue by having an interest in a cable company, I see no reason why it should not. I see every good reason why it should. If, however, the Leicester Mercury wants to have its shares only in Leicester where it already has a dominating influence, that is a different matter.
The situation in Nottingham is even worse. Our only local daily in Nottingham, the Evening Post, has been flung out of its own industrial employers' association for not obeying the rules, amongst other things, of Conservative industrial relations policy. Is the Nottingham Evening Post, which even the Minister's industrial colleagues will not have as a member of the Newspaper Society, to be the only supplier in Nottingham? If that is so, it is highly strange.
On the content of programmes, hon. Members have talked about pornography but there has been no reference to violence. We do not talk about violence in relation to existing broadcasting, either commercial or the BBC. In the United States, a 10-year study, recently completed, shows that the influence of violence displayed on television is adverse to the community as a whole. There has been no mention of this subject by the Government. What will be their controls on the display of violence? It is possible that the display of a couple engaged in the sexual act on television will not have nearly the same evil effect on society as the display of violence, even though some violence associated with the sexual act may be shown.
Hon. Members have talked about foreign material in terms of this being solely a question of encouraging British suppliers against American or other suppliers of material. That is not solely the issue. It is a question whether we


wish to encourage our own British culture as opposed to the culture of other countries. It is not simply a case of subsidising British producers. I hope that they are not subsidised. I should like to think that they are good enough to make a profit on their own. It is a case of keeping out undesirable foreign material—for instance, material from the United States that shows a much greater use of guns than is permissible in Britain.
There is a need properly to examine the issue of copyright. We should start to think about creating a distinction between the man who creates and the man who is merely the executant. I can see every reason for the works of composers and authors being protected. I cannot see why Agatha Christie's nephew should have her works protected because she was bright and he inherited them.
Copyright is a strange world. It is neither one thing nor the other. It is neither a heritable property in perpetuity nor does it expire with the lifetime of the man for whose benefit it is supposed to exist. It continues for 50 years, which seems an odd period to choose. A more sensible period of 20 years was chosen for public lending right. It is not sensible to have a massive blanket set of copyright laws that protect everyone down to the least efficient musician or actor in the world. There is a difference when a man is merely executing the thoughts of others. The matter needs to be examined.
I can understand the BBC's feelings about "pay-per-view". If the screening of the World Cup was sold to the highest bidder, it is fairly obvious that certain organisations, public service organisations and ITV companies would be almost wiped out. I am not sure, though, why one cannot have "pay-per-view" for subsidised performances. Why cannot some of the taxpayers' money being spent on subsidising opera at Covent Garden be recouped by allowing those operas to be broadcast more readily? I agree, however, that because of copyright laws there are many restrictive practices of the Musicians' Union that would stand in the way. All these issues need to be examined together.
It is extraordinary that we probably cannot have "pay-per-view" for subsidised performances which do not make money because of copyright laws that lead to restrictive practices. We cannot have "pay-per-view" of things that make money because it would destroy our existing broadcasting quality. I hope that the Minister will investigate this more seriously than Hunt and recognise that "pay-per-view" is a complex subject requiring a complex answer. It requires more than the simple answer of "Don't do it" or "Do it".
There is another issue that has not been mentioned. A few years ago the Russians decided to embark upon cabling for the good reason that it enabled them to control more readily what the population was watching. Anyone can pick up broadcasts. With cabling, it is different. Those sitting in the Kremlin can decide not to show in central Asia, where there are Moslems, some things which are shown elsewhere in the USSR. There are all sorts of advantages for an authoritarian State.
It is interesting that a Conservative Government should be advocating the cabling of Britain as fast as possible. I hope that the Conservative Government will remember that, once Britain is cabled, it will provide anyone who wishes to act in an authoritarian manner with a weapon that

hitherto has not existed. That is only one of many implications that have to be considered. There is not much time.
I was glad to hear that the Government are not proposing to legislate this Session. They are presumably proposing to legislate in the next Session if they can. It does not seem to me that all the social implications have been considered. Printing led to the Reformation. I do not know what cabling will lead to. I suspect strongly that television throughout the developed world is one of the causes of the rise in crime. This is general on both sides of the Atlantic. Cable will lead to a different society. The march of technology should not be stopped. Its advance should, nevertheless, be considered carefully.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I understand that Mr. Speaker drew attention to the fact that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. No fewer than 10 hon. Members have been present throughout the debate and are anxious to take part. If speeches last for rather less than 15 minutes, it will be possible for all those hon. Members to be called.

Mr. Tim Brinton: I shall endeavour to speak for less than 15 minutes, although that may be an ambitious statement. The remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) take me conveniently to the point that I wish to emphasise. I read with great interest the report of the debate in the other place and the wise words expressed about many of the problems associated with extension of cable television. What strikes me about that debate and about our proceedings today is that insufficient emphasis has been given to all the ramifications of cabling. We have talked almost entirely in terms of further television channels as they have been known.
Many hon. Members have stated rightly that we have the best broadcasting system in the world. I agree. Now we are beginning to work out how to achieve the best narrowcasting in the world. It is not sensible to start by assuming that we shall follow everything that has happened in the United States. In the next 20 years television pictures as we know them will be a minor part of the cable system. There may be 10 or 20 channels. Many more channels will be performing other functions. There has been mention of banking and shopping. It is an awful thought that progress towards the videophone might be achieved quite quickly by this means.
If one looks back over the past 20 years of progress in technology, I do not think that one would have imagined 20 years ago that we would have reached anywhere near the stage that we have reached with our broadcast television. As the whole process of technology moves faster and faster, it is unimaginable to see where cable will have taken us in 20 years.
As I understand it, the urgency that has been criticised by many Labour Members is an urgency to be started before we are beaten. As a nation, we have a choice which is quite simply to opt out of the race and not go in for cable. However, if we go in gradually, slowly and hesitatingly and over a period of longer years so that British Telecom can cable the whole country, we shall be doomed to be beaten on technology by other countries.
That is an inevitable part of the process. France, Germany and even Argentina have recently pressed the trigger to go on cable. I used that word unintentionally. It is essential to start the momentum, but that does not mean that we cannot spend a great deal of time talking about how we shall control the issues that are involved and how we shall allocate the franchises.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will not delay the introduction of starting this important process. Even if, like Biarritz in France, we start only one or two towns going urgently, we shall then be able to test the technology, find the answers and the adaptation between proper coaxial and fibre optics and so on. The two things will link together in a way that will sell British technology all over the world, which is the objective.
The BBC sees a threat. The IBA also spoke of a threat, but it was more a wish to be able to control cable. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith), I should have declared an interest. I am a broadcaster and I have recently been involved in a failed application for an IBA radio station. It is not because of that failure that I have believed for months that to give control to the IBA of the operation of cable would be wrong.
I mean no criticism of the worthy work that the IBA does, but I see cable as a different animal. To expect the IBA, which has grown up with its own traditions of fairly severe and stringent control and—to echo the hon. Member for Nottingham, West—of matters being decided in secrecy with no reason being given to the applicants is the wrong approach. Cable should be intensely and openly competitive. Everyone should know what is going on. When spoke before on this subject, I was a little grudging about control but I now see that we must have some type of quango to control cable. This should, as the Hunt report suggests, have an oversight role rather than anything more elaborate.
I hope, too, that the other interested parties in the television performance of cable will not be quite so grudging and hesitant as they are at the moment. I am thinking of the trade unions of which I am a member—the Actors' Equity and the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. They have both taken an attitude of extreme caution. When I think of the number of their members who are unemployed at any given time, I believe that they should be more forward thinking and realise that cable television, if it is to compete and succeed with broadcast television, cannot get away with presenting continually "Dragnet"and "Dallas". We must remember that the subscriber has to pay extra if he wants cable, and people will not pay extra for that type of programme. They will pay because they get a good quality and variety of programme. Therefore, more British technicians and performers will be employed by cable.
There is a general level of standards, and there has been in the film industry since it began. Out of this, great films come, and the same will apply as television, in whatever form, multiplies. The position of the British film industry in this exercise is also something that deeply interests me. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts and was associated with its recent report. In it we made strong suggestions that television, cable television and video tape showing of feature films should be included in some form of Eady levy to recreate the basic capital that is needed in the British film industry.
At the moment, we have no British film industry, and hon. Members who ask about quotas put everyone in a difficult position. If we insist on quotas we shall find that we have no feature films for a home box office channel that are of British origin. We must somehow create a fund to get that going again.
The BBC resists "pay-per-view" strongly. I accept that the great national events should be specified and expected, but I fail to understand the suggestion that all "pay-per-view" is bad. Certainly, as one or two hon. Members have suggested about opera and other programmes such as plays, "pay-per-view" would be the ideal way to recoup money. I do not see why it should not extend itself to football matches. Where major sports events are taken at length on cable, the edited highlights could be provided for the broadcasters if they wanted them. At the moment, because of the limitation of channels, all one gets on broadcasting are almost always edited highlights or the final furlongs.
In bringing a very delicate child into this world in the shape of cable television, we have nothing more to fear than we had all those years ago when ITV was born. Fearful voices will be raised, and it is astonishing how the scripts from the BBC and others are almost the same as they were 30 years ago in the early 1950s, except that they now say "cable television" instead of "commercial television". The moment that cable television comes in, we shall find the BBC and everybody else anxious to get in with it and get on with it.
That cable television is an advance in our civilisation is undoubted, and we should think more about what that will do and perhaps a little less about a Reithian concept of controlling moving pictures and sound on a television screen. Let us impose controls gradually, because this is a highly expensive investment, as many hon. Members have pointed out. We must ensure that investors are prepared to put their money into cable.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at one stage implied that cable would be a get-rich-quick scheme. At the next moment, he was saying how difficult it would be for the cable companies to make money. In the short run, it will be hard for cable companies to make money, and they will not make money by putting on low-quality stuff. Therefore, I support the longer franchises.
The display of porn and such things is a temporary phenomenon. In Denmark when the laws on porn were released, people became bored within a year. It no longer happens to the same degree in Denmark. Porn is not the popular, long-term money maker that has been suggested. The appeal is that porn is faintly illicit, illegal or whatever. The moment that that ceases to be, it ceases to be interesting.
I hope that the Government will allow cable television to advance into and towards the twenty-first century, and to start soon and effectively. It will create some jobs, and it will create a new spirit because we shall have something very magical to look forward to.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is unfortunate that the slant of the debate has been so much towards broadcasting and all the aspects that have been raised in the Hunt report.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the terms


of reference of the Hunt report were broad enough. What the debate is and should be about is this country's future communications strategy. That is about much more than just our broadcasting. I remind the House that if one looks at existing television and video text distribution systems one realises that one is talking about much more than most of the matters that have preoccupied the attention of the House in the debate.
We have four UHF channels, and two VHF channels, currently carrying 405 line black and white television. We have the possibility of low power television. DBS is coming along, with a potential of five channels. There is the possibility of small master antennae television. We have multi-point distribution services. As hon. Members have mentioned, the video cassette recorder has burst forth. We have video discs. These matters have not been mentioned, but they are germane to the issue. We have teletex, viewdata and telex. It is unfortunate that cable is not being discussed in the context of all the distribution systems that are available to us at the moment and that may come on stream in future.
The future distribution and communications system of the country is the central nervous system of the modern economy and is vital not only to the future of our business life but to our social life and virtually every other aspect of our lives. It is not surprising that the Home Secretary said that in recent months this matter had stimulated interest and understanding. There has been the information technology advisory panel report, which dealt with one part of the issue, and the Hunt report, which dealt with another part of the issue, and the Part recommendations. The debate has been bitty. No broad consensus has developed.
I am in favour of speedy action by the Government in this and other matters. The great criticism that the British people have of the Government and the House is that it often takes too long to get things done. It is welcome to see the speed with which the Government have attempted to move. They have set going a juggernaut. There is a danger of its getting out of control, running too fast and doing considerable damage.
I have no doubt that we must go ahead as speedily as possible. Irrespective of anything else, if we do not go ahead, we shall lose out in the race against the other countries. We are talking not just about broadcasting but about the central nervous system of the whole modern economy. Industry, commerce and every other aspect of our lives will be dependent on the future communications system. If our communications system is second rate compared with the system in France, Germany, America and Japan, our industries will be disadvantaged as a result. We cannot ignore the developments in other countries. We cannot hold back. With regard to the pace of the development and the sort of development that we must have, we must try to ensure that as far as possible we get it right both technically and in terms of broadcasting standards.
There is no doubt that we should have our sights firmly set upon establishing a national electronic grid. My colleagues and I have great sympathy with the arguments that were put forward by Lord Weinstock in the Financial Times the other day. On the other hand, I see no reason

why we should follow the course advocated by the official Opposition of giving British Telecom a monopoly in laying down the national electronic grid.

Mr. John Garrett: That is what Lord Weinstock said.

Mr. Wriggleworth: That may be what Lord Weinstock seemed to imply but he did not explicity say that.
We should have a national electronic grid, but we should not exclude the possibility of other people providing parts of the grid. What BT almost certainly will provide is the inter-city switched network that will be the whole basis of the national network. It is important that the terms of the franchise that is given to cable companies, which lay cables that will be attached to the grid, lay down standards and conditions that ensure that we have compatible systems that will build up eventually into the national grid.
It is difficult at this stage for hon. Members to determine what is the best technical system. I guess that there is broad consensus that we should go as far as possible for fibre optics, for obvious reasons that have been stated. Listening to what has been said by some of the most senior engineers over recent weeks and months, I have become slightly bemused about what potential there is and what technical possibilities there are.
There seems to be considerable argument between the technical experts about what can be done both by fibre optics and a combination of fibre optics and coaxial cable. We do not need to follow religiously one or the other. There is no doubt that a substantial interactive cable network could be provided on coaxial cable. I hope that that will not happen as there are great advantages in fibre optics. Perhaps a combination of the two to start with is the way forward to get ahead speedily. We can ensure at the end of the day, when the technology is available, that we can move over entirely to fibre optics.
There has also been a great deal of confusion in discussions over recent months between the needs of the domestic market and the business market. Much of the interactive work that could be done on the cable network will almost certainly be predominately for the business market and not for the domestic market. However, some facilities—for example, security services, which could be provided in people's homes—will be welcomed by many people, particularly those who are living by themselves.
One of the powerful arguments for introducing a cable system with those facilities is that it would ensure that those who are home-bound, some of the most underprivileged in our society, have available shopping, bank and other facilities to enable them to live a much easier life than if the facilities were not available. Many would welcome security facilities for old people.
The services that some people envisage are already almost here. I have mentioned some that are in existence. We have the interactive Prestel service. Through the Prestel service one can make orders for a variety of things. We will need considerable convincing that there will be an immediate vast market for that service. However, one can see its enormous potential. There is great advantage in going ahead with cable as quickly as possible.
I am much less enthusiastic about, but not opposed to, the development of the new entertainment facilities that are being suggested. I agree with the hon. Member for


Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that it will be good to provide some of the local television services that he mentioned for people.
There are undoubtedly gaps in the market that are plain for all to see. Video tape has filled them to some extent but gaps remain that an entertainment service could fill. The British market is different from that in other countries, not least because of the vast and rapid development of video. That has provided people with the opportunity not only to look at tapes but to use the time shift facility which is a great attraction to many people, not least to hon. Members.
We shall shortly have breakfast television and the satellite services, as well as the existing channels. There is a wholly different broadcasting ethos from that in other parts of the world. If people wish to invest their money in providing a wide range of services, it is wrong that they should be stopped from doing so. As hon. Members have said, we must ensure the maintenance of good standards and services.
I do not want to talk at length about quotas, but it is important that we should seek to protect the British film industry. The Government are already removing much of the film industry's protection. They are removing the Eady levy and are reducing quotas in British cinemas. It would be a retrograde step if the 14 per cent. quota were removed. That has protected our industry in the past and has given us what is widely acknowledged to be one of the best facilities in the world.
In order to ensure that standards are maintained at a reasonable level, we need a slightly tighter control than that envisaged by the Hunt report. I do not accept the arguments against the IBA carrying out such a supervisory role. I want to see not the control that IBA exercises in relation to television companies—that is relatively simple to exercise with the number of companies that we have—but the type of control which the IBA exercises over local commercial radio stations. If the Government are anxious to press ahead quickly in introducing this service, it seems to me that that is a ready-made system for monitoring cable television which could quickly come into operation and create public confidence in the services that will be provided.
I sound a note of caution. There has been a substantial reaction against the prospect of low standards and pornographic services. That was particularly drawn to the public's attention by the idea of the electronic lock. That is a silly proposal which I hope is not implemented. It has created a great deal of opposition to the introduction of cable, networks which, I hope, will not be justified. However, in order to restore confidence to those who are anxious, one hopes that the regulatory body will have slightly tighter control than the Hunt report envisages—the same sort of control as the IBA exercises over local commercial radio stations.
We have been told, rightly, that cable is potentially important in maintaining, and possibly providing, jobs. It is unlikely that unemployment will be reduced unless the Government change their economic policy. The introduction of cable however, will ensure that we do not lose more jobs because of the competition that will inevitably come from other countries.
There is a case for proceeding relatively rapidly, even if we slow down the juggernaut from the speed that it has picked up over the past six months. The speed with which the Government have come to a conclusion on the

recommendations of the Part committee is staggering. I am in favour of quick decisions, but to make such a decision in 48 hours on MAC rather than PAL without. as far as I am aware, any consultation with our European partners is potentially disastrous. I do not know whether the decision is right or wrong, but there have been few opportunities for it to be discussed in a wider forum. To make a decision in 48 hours seems to me to be dangerous.
I hope that, while proceeding as rapidly as possible, the Government will concentrate their efforts on developing a strategy for communications and not rush headlong into something that may be regretted later.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I listened to the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) with interest because he got half the story right. He is correct to set the debate within the context of Britain's whole communications needs. However, he is wrong to make the reservation that we must not rush headlong. I do not suggest that we should, but we need to move ahead a bit faster than perhaps the Hunt report appreciated.
It was said that the Hunt committee would study an expansion of cable systems, including, when available, services of direct broacasting by satellite. That was one of the terms announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 March 1982. One wonders whether his Department, as opposed to the Department of Industry, had appreciated that direct broadcasting by satellite had already been available for a decade. It is within the context of direct broadcasting by satellite and cables that we must consider the Hunt report. They must be considered together. Only in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Hunt report is there any reference to our ability to use satellites as a complement to cable services.
If we do not take those into account as complementary means of communication, we are ignoring the experience of the United States, from which it would be to our advantage to learn. We recognise that the United States has large areas across which to communicate and that therefore a satellite immediately appears more viable, particularly when it can be rooted back into local area networks for cables.
The Hunt report then dismisses the American experience as irrelevant. Paragraph 57 says:
The need to use satellites for this purpose is less in a country the size of the United Kingdom".
The Hunt Committee has not taken the technologial advice which it should have done about the problems of communicating within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology told me this week that he had at the forefront of his mind the need for workable legislation to be available in order to ensure that communication systems using fibre optics could be laid along public ducts using existing services such as the routes of telecommunications, the water mains and even sewers. Those are essential below-the-surface communications.
However, Britain is crossed backwards and forwards with so many forms of communications that would be interrupted that there is a strong case for using direct broadcasting satellites to communicate not only between London and Glasgow, between Huddersfield and Penzance, but from one side of the street to the other.
When one reads the Part committee report, one becomes even more gloomy about the understanding of the


technology that should be available. That report came down heavily on the side of the MAC system. It is supposed to be a unique British system. I have been involved in many heroic engineering works in this country, which in the end do not seem to tie up with what customers throughout the world want, to make the market base viable. Information about the MAC system that I and my other colleagues received recently shows that to use that system would cost £100 more per domestic television set than to use the extended PAL system. Furthermore, the MAC system would not allow access to and from Europe. It is further suspect in that it would allow the Irish to put into this country—if we can have the cheaper system offered by extended PAL—the very items of American programmes that many hon. Members fear will be the prime motivation of cable television producers. Lastly, one has only to look at the advertising style that is required in the United States to promote those poor quality programmes to see that, by going just for the MAC system, or by putting it foremost in our minds, we could end up with a one-off which no one in the rest of the world wants to buy.
On the question of whether cable should be coaxial or fibre optics, I suggest that if my hon. Friend cares to search through the lower regions of the Department of Industry he will find records of work done in the British aerospace industry in this country 10 years ago, when fibre optics were used not in the quiet environment below the streets of London but in aeroplanes. Those aircraft, operating in temperatures between minus 70 degrees centigrade and plus 150 degrees centigrade, well outside the environment of our homes, proved that fibre optics were a satisfactory signalling system. It was found to be a satisfactory signalling system 10 years ago. However, engineers in this country did not stop at using analogue signals, which are of poor value, for a fibre optics signalling system. They used digital signalling which can carry much more information and can time share various types of information.
It would be useful, therefore, in the time between now and the promised White Paper, if the Department were to look carefully at the kinds of technology that are available, and to study carefully the impact of the implementation of the Part report on our ability to establish a viable export market base in this country.
There has been much talk about the quality of programmes that will be available on cable television. Most people see it primarily as an entertainment system. As my right hon. Friend said earlier this afternoon, there is a growing market demand which probably could only be satisfied by the ability to use cable and satellite for the transmission of data.
CIT Research Limited produced a report recently which had 33 sponsors, including the Cabinet Office, NEDO, the BBC, and most of the European PTTs. The report concluded that only one in 20 consumers would be prepared to pay £8 a month for a cable service, and only one in four would be willing to pay as little as £1 a week. To paraphrase what an infamous young lady said a while ago, "They would, wouldn't they". It depends what one gets for the money one pays.
I asked a young man what he, as a young person, would like to see in cable television. He had no problem at all. He quickly listed six items, some of which have been

mentioned here today. First, there was sport—the ability for an enthusiast to watch a whole programme and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said in a very fine speech, the ability to learn something about how to play a sport. He mentioned fishing, and Opposition Members laughed. The largest single sport in this country is fishing. More people take part in fishing than in any other sport. Open golf tournaments have been mentioned, and the possibility of seeing a whole tournament. That is where pay television comes in. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead said, we must consider what people want, not what we believe is good for them.
The second item was films. Networks usually show only one film a day, while a cable operator can show five or 10. Many of us never have a chance to see high quality foreign films, which are available in only a few cinemas in London.
The third item was education. Old and young would have the chance to see what was being taught and to learn for themselves, particularly as the time scale of technology is getting shorter all the time, in their own time about new opportunities, and to build up expertise. Cable television could provide a valuable school service. Most school programmes are aimed at the under-12s, because it is more time-consuming and complicated to aim at O-level and A-level students. Cable could give the opportunity for people to broaden their education, discover the finer aspects of learning, and listen to the best teachers in the country. Adolescents do not get much time on television now. If Channel 4 is anything to go by, the "off' switch is the thing to use.
Major foreign events were the young man's fifth choice. He talked about the Royal wedding, which got major cable coverage in the United States. Certainly we should like to have more coverage of important speeches in various parts of the world—perhaps those of the United States President—or even to watch the latest military equipment in Red Square in Moscow. That would be not for entertainment purposes, but to learn about the nature of people or important occasions abroad.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has already stolen the sixth item on my list, theatre productions, so that people need not come to London, and could see good plays, operas and ballet in their homes.
I should like to add only one more item, at which I am sure no one in this place will laugh, but at which people outside will certainly laugh, and that is the ability to see Parliament. One may not want to pay to see Parliament, but it would be valuable to see a debate such as the one we are having on communications, and hear, on the basis of a whole debate, what people on both sides of the House feel in a discussion which to me, at least, does not seem in the least acrimonious.
We have here a big opportunity, and we should move forward as quickly as possible, using the best of our technology. If people are afraid of what will appear on 44 channels, I commend to them the magical critical ability that they have of using the "off' switch. The IBA should be a perfectly satisfactory regulatory agency, and there is no need for us to invent another. We are faced with a technical challenge that is worthy of parliamentary encouragement. It will give job opportunities, the ability to export, new ideas and, above all, a better choice for the individual.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) that cable television and all the other adjuncts of the communications revolution can be either a threat or a promise. The hon. Gentleman chose to concentrate on the promise, and rightly so. There are many things on the shopping list that he gave the House which we, too, would find desirable. However, we must also concentrate to some extent on the threat.
This is a crucial debate. If the House and the Government get it wrong in the next few months, we shall be stuck with decisions, the consequences of which may well throw out necessary development in technology in this country over the next few years.
The debate is not, as some hon. Members have tried to suggest, on the one hand, baying Luddites, knuckles thumping on the floor, determined to smash the machines and drive us back to the Stone Age, and, on the other hand, heroic entrepreneurs trying to bring sweetness and light to the general population, if only we give them a sufficiently long franchise. The reality is rather different.
I wish that the Prime Minister had been here to listen to the arguments that have been put forward. Whatever the Home Secretary may say, we know that the speech at the Barbican next week will be crucial. Gloriana will appear, suspended no doubt from glittering coaxial cables as rigid and obsolescent as she is herself, to give the speech that will determine the thrust of the Government's policies. Much has been pre-empted before today's debate.
The least that the House can do is to express an alternative view which has some force. The decisions that we are now being asked to take could mean a bonanza for American programme providers rather than for the British, for Canadian entrepreneurs and hucksters rather than for the British, and for Japanese peddlers of out-of-date technology, however efficient at peddling it they may be, rather than for the technology of the future that the Minister of State, like me and most other hon. Members, would like to see given an advantage and a competitive edge.
My first point is about the central issue of regulation. It is at the heart of the matter. However Lord Hunt's committee regarded the matter and however some people may wish to believe that, in the wide society of electronic publishing and other easy phrases and slogans, we do not need regulations, we do need them for both negative and positive reasons. Television will be only a small part of the cable revolution.
The television set is already used by my children—and probably by the children of other hon. Members—for many other purposes than watching the box. It is a VDU for their home computer, and soon it may be the screen for the new viewphone system. If we are to examine the cable element of the broadcasting system, we should examine the interactive element. Many hon. Members have babbled glibly about interactive systems without knowing what they are. I shall deal with the interactive nature of what we have at the moment and the choice that that offers as against what we are being told we might need, and what that, in turn, offers.
The development of the broadcasting system in Britain has proceeded along the route of public service under

public regulations, because that is the best way to ensure that all citizens in the country get there in the end. They all get the same range of choice.
The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton) and others have said that, of course, these things begin with the luxuries. He said that in the beginning came the luxury device that sooner or later became accessible to other people. Cable television is not quite like that. There is no analogy with the systematic provision of a nationwide system of transmitters and the emphasis upon them that brought the broadcasting services over the air to the whole country. Nor is there any easy analogy with the way in which the Government have set about introducing DBS services. If we consider television channels—channel 4 having just started, breakfast television about to start, and competition for advertising—and the enormous investment for genuine programme-making and the intrusion into that scene of an essentially parasitic group of cable entrepreneurs without regulation, we can see some of the dangers to the system. That is why protection is needed for genuine choice.
The Home Secretary said that cable television is complementary to public service broadcasting. I suggest that it is a form of public service and that there must be a public service element within it. There must be controls on the proportion of foreign ownership and programming for reasons with which any hon. Member would be familiar if he had witnessed what has happened in the United States and elsewhere where the principal multinational cable entrepreneurs are dominant.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), said that franchise operators want 25-year leases. They believe that is what they need. Why? Franchise operators want 25-year leases because they suspect that what is on offer in the Hunt proposals, which the Government may accept, is not sufficiently profitable. Therefore, they want rather more.
Professors Ehrenberg and Barwise of the London Business School conducted an interesting survey of the system's profitability and what it was likely to offer. It was given in evidence to the Hunt committee. They suggested that it was predominantly mass entertainment programming that would make money for the cable operators. Many of the other matters that have been referred to wistfully today were considered unlikely to be so lucrative. The operators know that well.
Professors Ehrenberg and Barwise also said that an unregulated cable system would produce largely unwanted social side effects, among which they included the social divisiveness between cable subscribers in profitable areas and the rest and the desperate struggle for market share and revenue by and with the networks. We should look at those matters when we consider how long the franchises should be and how much regulation—whether at a distance or much more direct—there should be.
Revenue for the cable stations will, as the Home Secretary said, come from a mix of subscriptions, advertising, pay television, "pay-per-view" and sponsorship. Some of those sources of revenue are under threat from the outset. No one knows how much revenue can be generated by advertising. In the immensely richer United States, cable systems that have relied on advertising have shown a loss. Some of them, including the prestigious CBS cultural service, mentioned by hon. Members who obviously believe that it is still offered to the people of Manhattan, has gone bust. What is more, as I tried to


explain to the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), the video explosion in Britain does not necessarily mean that there is a terrific appetite for films by subscription cable television. If one hires a film for a video recorder, one does not necessarily want to pay a large subscription to a cable company to get the same service.
The companies may soon demand two things. The first will be much longer licences than the proposed eight or 10 years. The second will be a rapid relaxation of the rules about "pay-per-view" services.
The Ministry has been extremely diligent in his attendance. As he is here, I should like to ask him a question. There was a leak in one of the Sunday newspapers that the Government are now attempting to lure the hucksters back into the system by suggesting that they may have 25-year franchises and that those franchises will enable them to carry out data transmission services and television programmes. If so, where does the sanction lie if the provision of the cable television service is unsatisfactory? Like the Minister, I am familiar with paragraph 22 of the Hunt report and the suggestion that if in those circumstances a cable operator were providing unsatisfactory programmes he could be made to sell off his cable system. It is extremely difficult to do that once the operator is providing other services, which he may be producing efficiently, and once he has made the initial investment in hardware and software. We are left with a weakness in the proposals for the regulations, and it should be examined closely.
The problem is that operators are likely to give us a mix of programming. Mass entertainment will predominate. This is the home box office concept—films and so on. There will be a determination to move towards the type of programming that will draw in the viewers, whatever reservations hon. Members may have about some of it.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North and others have been bleating about Channel 4. They want it switched off after only two or three weeks because they do not like some of the programmes that appeal to minorities. Yet they want 25-year licences for the cable operators and they pray in aid some of the same minorities who, they say, may be well served by the system. I shall tell the House who will be served by the system if profitability is in doubt—those who want re-runs of old movies, old television programmes and pornography.
I am sure that the Minister will not try to tell us that the magic electronic key suggested by the Hunt committee will stop any 10-year-old watching pornographic programmes. It certainly would not stop my children, who can work the machinery far better than I can. By the time I came home, they would not only have watched the programme but recorded it in slow motion on video tape so that I could have an action replay. That is how useful such safeguards are when children are about.
Cable operators ask for long franchises, saying that they will not take the risk without them. They will not take the risk because there is no public service element in what they are required to do. That leads me to the conclusion that we should have a national system. I think that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) did Lord Weinstock a disservice in suggesting that his proposals simply handed over the installation of cable to British Telecom. I believe that Lord Weinstock wanted—rightly—a consortium in which British Telecom

would be the market leader, providing the national electronic grid and able to see that it was transferred to optic fibre as soon as practicable.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Perhaps I may clarify that point. I certainly did not intend to give the impression that that was my understanding of Lord Weinstock's proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Whitehead: Yes, I accept that. Lord Weinstock saw a role for British Telecom and I believe that he was right. It is no use Conservative Members simply attacking British Telecom and Opposition Members attacking private industry. Unless there is a partnership in the best spirit of a mixed economy, the kind of national grid that I wish to see will not be installed.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that at the very least a convertibility stipulation will apply to the systems introduced, so that we are not stuck with out-of-date coaxial systems when we could transfer to switched-star and optic fibre, in which this country could be a market leader with a high export potential for years to come. If those assurances are given, if there is some glimmering of understanding that some of the people going into cable intend not to enrich public choice but merely to enrich themselves and that that is not a necessary corollary to the kind of public service input that we want, today's debate will not have been wholly in vain.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) always brings great expertise to debates on broadcasting and television. He was, of course, a member of the Annan committee. If there is any common ground between those who have taken part in debates on cable television within and outside the House, it is that in considering the matter several years ago the Annan committee entirely underestimated the pace of the technological revolution that was to overtake television. It is a pity that that comittee did not turn its mind to these matters then, as these debates could have taken place at any time in the past three or four years and we should now be further along the road.
I go at least part of the way with the hon. Member for Derby, North in his comments about the problems of franchise control. It is understandable that those contemplating applying for franchises want a franchise longer than eight or 10 years. Nevertheless, I share the misgivings of the many people who do not want them to have 25-year or lifetime franchises.
The amount of capital that will have to be invested, however, is clearly very much greater than in the case of an ordinary independent television franchise. In the latter case, if the franchise is removed after a few years, the studios, cameras and other equipment can be disposed of fairly simply. In the case of cable television, however the cable, switching equipment and so on will be worth many millions of pounds. If removal of the franchise is to be a real threat, we must agree an evaluation procedure at this stage so that the cable and other equipment can be transferred from one franchise-holder to another. The threat will then become a real possibility rather than some kind of nuclear deterrent so horrendous that it will never be used.
On controls falling short of removal of franchise, I am sorry that the Hunt committee turned its back on the


financial penalties involved in the performance bonding system so common in the United States. If the franchise-holder does not put in equipment to the agreed standard or does not cable the area quickly enough, he is subject to financial penalties through the performance bond. I believe that we can and should develop that kind of minor financial penalty in this country. I hope that the Government will consider that, as the Hunt committee's view is clearly not the last word on the subject.
A certain amount of disquiet has been expressed today about the Hunt committee's proposals on pornography. I do not believe that we should devote too much attention to this, as the parameters of the debate have been greatly changed by the video cassette revolution. To paraphrase an old cliché, we should be locking the brothel door after the whore has bolted. Some 20 per cent.—certainly 15 per cent.—of homes with television in this country already have video recorders and it is estimated tht that proportion will rise to 50 per cent. in the near future. Thus, anyone who really wants to see pornography on the television screen has only to buy or hire a video recorder, go down to the friendly neighbourhood sex supermarket and rent a pornographic film without any controls applying. I suspect, therefore, that there is no need to devote a great deal of attention to that aspect.
We should not lightly accept the Hunt committee's recommendations against "pay-per-view". I believe that such a system has substantial importance for the sporting life of this country. Naturally, the BBC is terrified that cable television may gain a foothold in sports television. For the past 25 years, while the country has been mad about watching sport on television, television has had sport on the cheap. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the television authorities have short-changed the sporting establishment. If one looks at the penurious state of athletics, rugby, racing, football or cricket, one sees that the television authorities have raped and pillaged sport. Pay television is the one way in which the sporting organisations can hope to recoup their fortunes.
Football stadiums are decrepit and prone to violence. Many football clubs are on the verge of bankruptcy. On the whole, football players are comparatively badly paid. In a good year the BBC and ITV paid football no more than £5 million. In America, the national football league has recently signed a contract with ABC and CBS to cover the full programme for a four-year period for $2 billion. The two networks are paying the national football league for the right to carry football a sum equivalent to the price for putting out every programme on BBC1 for a year. The result is that the American sporting establishment has rich players, luxurious stadiums and prosperous clubs. The only way in which British sport can hope to recoup its fortune is by some form of "pay-per-view". I hope that the Government will look at the Hunt committee's recommendations on that.
Cable television, like any changing communication, will produce as many bad programmes as good ones. There is always the risk that expansion will produce some lowering of standards. It is worth remembering that in civilisation's long history the greatest single decline in cultural, aesthetic and philosophical standards was produced by the printing press. Until then, monasteries were the major suppliers of books. The monks diligently produced bibles, prayer books, hymnals and works of theology and philosophy. The printing press came and lesser works were immediately available to the public and

it became possible to publish works of casual playwrights like William Shakespeare—a decline perhaps from the bible.
The expansion of communication carries the risk of some lowering of standards, but it also contains the promise of wider choice and much that is excellent. I am sorry that the Home Secretary seemed to suggest that all legislation on this point will be delayed until next Session. I hope that, following publication of the White Paper, we shall move a little faster and have the necessary legislation in this Session.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am fortunate to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). He ended with a request for speed. I believe that I have heard every speech in this debate, but I have heard nothing to justify the great haste with which the Government are embarking on the cabling of Great Britain. A case for speed can be made if the matter is approached correctly from the technological point of view. The interests that have been declared have been those of the programme organisers. They wish to use cable to advertise or reap the benefits of advertising revenue, and I do not believe that those are good enough reasons.
No one who is close to the British public can say that he has detected a crying need for the range of programmes that cabling will make possible. I have not detected that need among my constituents or the people of the area in which I live. The most puzzling feature of the debate is the speed at which it is taking place. There was a rather disgraceful report by the information technology advisory panel which is composed of an opinionated, self-interested and culturally disinterested group of people who urged that we go ahead with the cabling of Britain. As far as I could make out, they gave no good reasons for that. The Government, however, are quickly implementing the proposals.
Recommendation 8.11 of the report states:
The Government should announce as soon as possible its approval for an early start on DBS services.
That is all part of the same argument. There is a footnote which says:
The Home Secretary announced the Government's approval in principle for a two-channel operational DBS service starting in 1986 in a parliamentary statement on 4 March 1982.
This came as something of a surprise to those of us who have some experience of the excruciatingly slow and grinding processes by which Government decisions are made. Equally surprising was the fact that hot on the heels of that report the Hunt committee was set up. It was comprised of three members only because more members would have needed longer to reach a decision.
Within about nine months we had the Hunt report with its conclusions. One cannot start DBS until a decision has been made on which system should be used for transmitting from the satellite to the receivers. That is a difficult decision. A choice has to be made between two powerful lobbies—between the BBC and its PAL and extended PAL and the MAC system proposed by the IBA and its engineering directorate. It is a decision about which Governments would normally agonise for years. That problem was resolved without any trouble. Sir Anthony Part then crops up. I do not know what he knows about technology, but he has a good, independent and incisive


mind. Within a matter of weeks he made recommendations. Despite many pleadings from the BBC—with which I do not agree—that it would cut us off from our European audiences, a decision was reached. Come what may, we shall have MAC. It is almost unprecedented for a Government to wish to push through so quickly a series of decisions in such a complex and difficult area. I can find no good reason for the speed.
No one has yet mentioned the inherent conflict in what we are trying to do. Those in favour of television by cable urge the maximum speed; with equal emphasis, we are told that it is a high risk activity and needs a long franchise period. Hon. Members have referred to the period being between 20 and 25 years—some with anguish and others with delight.
The two arguments do not go together. If we push ahead as quickly as we can and give a franchise for 25 years, with the technological state of the two alternative systems—coaxial and fibre optics—we shall tie in a major part of our cabling to the coaxial system.

Mr. Whitney: indicated dissent—

Mr. Robinson: No doubt if the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will make his point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said that British Telecom is already advanced with its switching system, but I believe that it would be optimistic to commit ourselves to the time scale that it believes possible. Such things inevitably take longer than predicted, even in war. To meet the time scale that the Government have in mind for a national electronic grid it would need to be given the priority that Churchill gave to the development of radar in the Second World War.
In an article in the New Scientist I read that Churchill told Sir Bernard Lovell, among others, in April 1943 that he wanted 40 bombers equipped and flying with radar by October 1943. People worked night and day and there were a lot of failures but the bombers were equipped and flying by December 1943. If we gave this proposal the same priority, I am sure that we could achieve the objectives.
Other hon. Members have concentrated on the need to evolve a regulatory mechanism for the cable era, but I am not so worried about that. We have a national genius to evolve such bodies. I am sure that we shall find a suitable mechanism to control cable, as we did with the IBA and similar bodies. I am more interested in planning the technological implications of what is being done. The British public will decide what programmes they want; I have confidence in their judgment, but I have the gravest doubts about the Government's judgment and approach and about the speed when it comes to the technology to be used for cabling.
Lord Weinstock has been quoted to great effect. In case my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) does not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote what the Post Office Engineering Union says:
On any objective criteria British Telecom is the obvious and most qualified authority to provide the actual cable for television systems in this country.
It is open to fair party political and technical debate whether it is a total monopoly or a mixture.
The union's comments could almost have been written by Lord Weinstock. He used similar words in his article in the Financial Times. I hope that the Prime Minister will listen to him with the same attentiveness on this as on other issues. By doing so, she would also be listening to the views of the Post Office Engineering Union and British Telecom.
The union further states:
It has the wayleaves and physical infrastructure; it has the technically-trained workforce; it has the knowledge of both coaxial cable and optical fibre systems; it already operates a national switched communications network; and—perhaps above all—it is an existing organisation with decades of actual experience of carrying our large-scale technical projects and it is geared to start the re-cabling of Britain immediately.
We are not immediately ready to move to what we really need—the most advanced fibre optic technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) in his copius speech and other hon. Members spoke of the advantages of fibre optics over coaxial cable in providing the national electronic grid. But fibre optics is important not only in that area. The Japanese are no slouches at picking winners. The technical and major national newspapers report that they see fibre optics as a major growth area. Previously they have identified other such areas—cameras, information technology, micro-electronics and, for the future, biotechnology.
Let us take just one example—endoscopy, which is the means of viewing and filming the inside of the stomach by gastroscope or colonoscope. That multi-million pound international market which is based on advanced fibre optics is already dominated by the Japanese. Another massive multi-million pound market is road and rail signalling throughout the Arab-speaking world. Once we get the definition correct and sufficiently minute, it is another massive market that will be taken up in fibre optics. The whole potential for fibre optics comes from a great British invention. Professor Hopkins of Reading did the work in the early 1950s.
We should not be worrying in the short-term about immediately providing pornographic films or a news service. The nation needs long-term provision, to the highest level of technology, of a comprehensive electronic grid. We should not be pushing ahead to license the first flush of films on coaxial cable; we should be planning how to push the technical and marketing aspects of fibre optic technology.
The debate is the wrong way round. We do not urgently need to push ahead with cable television along the lines and in the time scale that the Government wish. But there is an urgent need for the Government to discuss with British Telecom and other cable manufacturers the time scale and standard of advanced internationally competitive technology for establishing a national electronic grid. The Prime Minister every Question Time harps on about international technology. If we were to do that, we would meet the needs of the consumer and the nation at one go. A great British invention would be exploited comprehensively to the benefit of British industry and the British consumer by using the most advanced technology.
I hope that we shall have a categoric assurance from the Minister for Industry and Information Technology that there will be no new major investment in coaxial cable. There must be no diversion of capital or intellectual resources.
There are those who say that the only way in which we shall secure the development of fibre optics is to go for a


franchise of 25 years that is based on coaxial cable. They are talking rubbish. That approach is a paradox and a contradiction. Fibre optics will be developed only by granting a 25-year franchise to an operator on the condition that he will use the most up-to-date fibre optic technology. That would be a deal that many of my hon. Friends and I could accept. It is that sort of deal that we wish to hear about. That is what we want to hear from the Minister for Industry and Information Technology when he replies. Anything else will be a second-rate decision taken by a Government in undue and unnecessary haste for reasons that I for one, having read all the relevant documents, am unable to discover.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) rightly said that at one stage in his speech I was shaking my head in disagreement. That was on the issue to which he returned at the close of his remarks, which is, in his view, the impossibility of making progress until everything is clear about fibre optics and associated technology.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) talked about the possibility of evolving from the coaxial tree-and-branch system into fibre technology. I note that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West is now shaking his head. It seems that we shall have to agree to differ. His hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North talked about evolving into optical fibre and a switched star system. Most experts estimate that the initial costs of this evolutionary possibility will be 5 or 10 per cent.—I agree that that is an entirely sound judgment—in return for a significantly longer franchise than the eight-year or 10-year agreement that is now proposed. That would be a fair balance to strike.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West quoted with approval Lord Weinstock. It has been suggested by a number of British cable manufacturers and industrialists that Lord Weinstock's present stand, which is closely allied with that of the Post Office Engineering Union, may have a little to do with the fact that GEC is rather behind the play. In effect, the noble Lord is asking for the play to be halted so that his company can catch up. That is a possibility.

Mr. Golding: Disgraceful.

Mr. Whitney: I should declare a putative interest in the cable industry. When the progress is achieved that we all hope will take place, I hope that a group of friends will launch into cable technology. Why not? This is surely what we are looking for. The putative nature of the project was somewhat increased by one or two of the echoes that came from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I hope that the dead hand of the Home Office will not weigh too heavily in this complex decision. It is an area in which the Home Office is not well fitted to take decisions. In so many areas of our national life the Home Office has its contribution to make, but it is generally a bastion of reaction. The challenging world of cable technology is not a natural habitat for the normal inhabitants of the Home Office. I hope that my right hon. Friend will struggle free from his Department's protective embrace. I hope that the initial thrust given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and especially by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, will be maintained.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West asked "What is the hurry?" There is a hurry because we must give this tremendous opportunity to British industry, which it will lose if we are slow. We must give the opportunity for jobs because it is probable that tens of thousands of jobs will accrue from this development. We must also provide the opportunity of choice, something which has not had a sufficient airing in the debate. We are reflecting the influence of the BBC and the public service of broadcasting generally.
Labour Members have asked for evidence of the need for choice. Video sales in Britain have outstripped those in any other country. That shows that there is not satisfaction with what is on offer in the public service of broadcasting. The choice offered to the public is not regarded as adequate. I shall refer again to the point admirably made in that splendid speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan). The choice available in Manhattan—brought to us by Andrew Neil, the editor of The Economist—was challenged by the hon. Member for Derby, North. The hon. Gentleman attempted to dismiss the proposition that on 7 June 1982 viewers in Manhattan had a choice of 25 channels. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the CBS cable was no Longer operating. Even if that is accepted, there are 24 channels showing six feature films, yet another ballet, the news, documentaries, two plays, two sports programmes and so on. At that time we had yet another regurgitation of "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" and the 9 o'clock news.
If we are kind and include last Saturday's viewing on Channel 4 at that time, we should have had one more choice. At 9 pm last Saturday, Channel 4 offered something called the "Norman Gunston Show". According to "TV Times", he is
a silver-tongued Australian comedian who specialises in practically incoherent interviews".
Therefore, we should not take too seriously the proposition that the public service broadcasting that is on offer is so wonderful that it cannot be improved.
In the past three months there has been an important development. There has been a counter-attack. There was a splendid initiative on the part of the Government that was followed by an organised counter-attack that was led, in particular, by the BBC but also by the IBA. I do not know what it is about Australians, but we have had, for example, Mr. Clive James dragging up Ugly George. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred—not inappropriately—to that programme. Mr. Clive James gave us several doses of that, half hour by half hour, on, I believe, Sunday by Sunday, seeking to prove that cable was a bad thing.
The quality of British television must be capable of improvement. I would not commend watching, for instance, "The Dukes of Hazzard" on BBC. If hon. Members are worried about low quality imports from the United States of America, the BBC has one or two things to answer for.

Mr. Critchley: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there is a 14 per cent. restriction on the BBC's imported material. If he had his way, there would be no quota on cable.

Mr. Whitney: If I had my way, there would be so many cable channels that the 14 per cent. would be irrelevant. Most of the material would be locally produced, anyway. Therefore, the whole quota system


falls to the ground. People have not grasped the local nature of what is offered by the narrowcasting of cable. The whole equation of 86 per cent. to 14 per cent. ceases to be relevant.
The House has not given due weight to the amount of talent in the British entertainment industry that is going to waste. Eighty per cent. of Equity's members are unemployed. If they are clever enough not to allow Mr. Sapper or the Equity bosses to keep them out of the picture, there will be tremendous opportunities for them. I have every confidence that more television will not mean worse television. It could well mean better television.
I have already dealt with the exaggeration of the technical problems. However, I am worried that the temperature is cooling over cable. We expect the forces of reaction that always assemble on the Opposition Benches and added to that we have the vested interests of the public service broadcasting system. The trouble is that they are now dragging out the difficulties and financial problems of some cable interests in America to try to prove to the City that this investment is not worthwhile. That is a danger of which the Government must take clear note. If they allow the foot-draggers who still exist in parts of the Government machine to coalesce with all the other vested interests, the whole project will be lost.
I therefore urge the Government not to allow this braking of the system. They should seize the opportunity to which the Home Secretary referred when he suggested that there was a possibility of pursuing an interim solution. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend, aided by the Minister for Industry and Information Technology, will cut through the undergrowth and strive hard for that interim solution.
I also hope that the promised further thought about "pay-per-view" will be further positive thought. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, we are not talking about the Derby or great events such as that. We are talking about the football matches of the away team and the cultural events for ethnic groups for which people will be willing to pay.
This is a challenge that we must not resist. The attitude in British society has been "Better not, do not do it, let us wait". Time and again, we have lost opportunities. We lost the jet and nuclear reactors. Let us not lose the cable opportunity.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: As a foot-dragger, I am reluctant to come between the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and his putative quick buck, but I dread the prospects for the 14 per cent. of Equity members who are in employment if his kind of cable television is what we adopt nationally.
I am in two minds on this issue. The first is attracted to the excitement, prospects and pluralism of a multiplicity of channels, but at the same time there is a real fear about the dangers we face if we take the wrong decisions, and all the indications are that we are heading towards wrong decisions. That is because we are not having a great debate on cable television. We are having much more of a bum's rush into cable television by the most underhand methods imaginable. In fact, if this is to be a renaissance, it will

be preceded by the dark ages, given the manipulations and intellectual shoddiness of the arguments that have been put forward for the kind of cable that seems to be on offer.
The report of the information technology advisory panel is a disgraceful piece of special pleading on behalf of the interests that are strongly represented on that panel. Mr. Mike Aldrich, the managing director of Rediffusion Computers, is specified in several places to be the author of that report. That is tantamount to getting criminals to write their own judgments or special interests to agree to their own demands.
That report was immediately followed by a quick reply from the Hunt committee, which is a classic example of how to get what one wants without specifically asking for it. This is a tame committee, with a former Cabinet secretary, whose whole experience is to put into far better words what politicians would like to have said but did not say. That committee was given the job of saying how, not whether, cable should be introduced, and how it would affect the existing media. All the important considerations were excluded, as were the possible restrictions.
As a result, I was not surprised at the reactions of the advertising industry. Mr. Roy Langridge, media director at J. Walter Thompson, said "It's great news", and the response of IPA director David Wheeler was "extremely encouraging". Mr. Wheeler added:
Virtually all the figures in the section of the report relating to advertising come from our report.
That is another prejudging of the issue, which has the dreadful indication of Aphrodite emerging from the cable at the Barbican Centre next Tuesday. Now that the miracle arising from the Government's economic policies has been indefinitely postponed, here is an indication that they have a strategy for some entertainment to while away the hours until the miracle occurs.
The basis of the argument for rushing in cable is that entertainment will carry the other purposes and objectives for which cable is available and will fulfil. That is an inadequate argument. Yet that is the basis for rushing through crucial decisions which, if taken wrongly, will not give benefits but will cripple us with outdated technology.
The Government's argument appears to be that entertainment will carry the other purposes. One has a vision of the Minister for Industry and Information Technology riding into silicon valley on a donkey. I doubt whether entertainment has the strength to carry the weight of the Minister and the other purposes, not because people will not be willing to pay or that they do not want further channels, but because there are so many alternatives—for example, direct broadcasting by satellite, the fifth channel from the re-engineered VHF to UHF, the low-power transmissions, and video, which is rapidly catching on. With all the alternatives and the lack of clear demand for the extra channels, I doubt whether entertainment will be able to carry the burden that is being put on its shoulders by the Government's strategy.
If entertainment fails to carry that burden, the case for rushing ahead, and doing it so overwhelmingly in the private sector, collapses. If entertainment cannot carry the burden, there will be a stronger argument for having British Telecom as the carrier and provider of the cable and using it for its own purposes.
There is a stronger argument not for rushing, but for making the decision in a calm, rational and calculated fashion. A crucial decision must be made about technology. A clear preference has emerged in the House,


first, for the switched-star system rather than for the tree-and-branch technology, which will be adopted if we go ahead at the present speed, and, secondly, for glass fibre rather than coaxial cable. Conservative Members have pointed out that glass fibre is more expensive at the moment—but sand is cheap. I will offer Cleethorpe's beach to the Government for their industrial miracle. But will they take it? A great demand would come through ordering from British Telecom—Government ordering—and through a decision to go for that technology. Costs would come down. Indeed, they would plummet. The cost of the switching gear, which would be quickly developed as demand materialised, would also come down.
A mistake on either of those two crucial decisions—tree-and-branch versus switched-star or coaxial versus glass fibre—will be costly. Only by waiting and taking the right decision will we get the best technology.
A second mistake, into which we are being rushed, is the creation of local monopolies. If entertainment does not carry the burden asked of it, a local monopoly which has installed the cable will be asked after eight or 10 years to give way. Once the cable is installed, it cannot be taken up again. It would be difficult to tranfer it to someone else. The franchise will be lengthened, or the inevitable will happen as has already happened with commercial television—the companies will demand that conditions imposed on them must be revoked.
We shall finish up with wall-to-wall orgasm, constant pornography and potential trivialisation. Cable is a devourer, not a creator, of programmes. It does not contribute to television. It uses television parasitically. If restrictions are removed—the Government's only answer should entertainment be unable to carry the burden—we shall finish up with all the worst features that Opposition Members dread.
The argument is clear. A public commitment should be made through British Telecom, which has the expertise and is wiring the country anyway. There will be a need to wire the country with fibre optics. British Telecom can provide the investment. It seems logical that there should not be competing systems or local monopolies. To allow British Telecom to be the carrier will mean adequate control over those who will handle the entertainment aspect of programmes. That is only one aspect of the whole purpose of cable.
The Government accuse the Opposition of being doctrinaire. What we are presented with tonight is a doctrinaire argument for private enterprise that is totally unrealistic. It has the potential for making wrong decisions and leaving us with the legacy of an outdated system and bankrupt communicators who will be forced to relax every standard which even this Government, with their low demand for standards, will impose.

Mr. Nigel Forman: The Hunt report took as its terms of reference the Government's wish to secure for this country the benefits of cable technology and the Government's willingness to consider an expansion of cable systems carrying a wider range of entertainment and other services but also the caveat that proposals should be framed in a way that was consistent with the wider public interest, in particular by safeguarding public service broadcasting. Judging by remarks made in this debate and the views of experts who have spoken in my hearing on this topic, it seems that the key factor in the Government's

decision making must be topology—in other words, the kind of system that we go for. The technology, important though it is, is secondary. Both the topology and the technology are, in a direct way, more important and more vital to this country than any of the commercial imperatives or the political gee-whizzery that is sometimes associated with information technology.
If the Government take the right decisions, it is clear that some of the benefits of cable technology will show up directly for those who use the system as customers. There will be benefits for existing television watchers who may well appreciate the wider range of programmes than is now available on four channels. These benefits will materialise so long as those who do not subscribe to cable systems are not thereby deprived of some of the programmes they can now get by the financial pulling power of cable programme services. This underlines the importance of the "must carry" rule mentioned in the Hunt report.
The benefits can also materialise for the viewer so long as cable programmes extend the range of programme choice for the viewer. I am not absolutely convinced that the evidence from the United States which may provide a model necessarily suggests that this will be so. I noticed with concern the programme schedule for the Home Box Office cable channel in the United States, which I believe is the only profitable one. It included such wonders as "Arthur", "Body Heat", "Halloween II", "Private Lessons", "The Commodores in Concert", "Camelot", "Not Necessarily the News", "Strange Creatures of the Night", "Race for the Pennant", "Looney Bugs Bunny Movie", "The Man Who Loved Bears", "The Great Muppet Caper", and so on. I am not convinced that that sort of programme content is necessarily for the best. I fear that there may be a Gresham's law in these matters whereby the bad drives out the good.
With regard to the benefit for cable operators and programme providers, one is right to be a little cynical as so much of this argument will depend on the length and terms of licences, on the range of obligations imposed, and the strengh of competition from such things as home video. Above all, it will depend upon the enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm of the public response.
I note that both Mr. Arthur Taylor of the United States cable television entertainment channel, who has recently been in this country, and the communications and information technology survey poured a great deal of cold water on the commercial prospects. There are two possible interpretations of that. One is the cynical one that people who want something from a Government often get into the habit of pouring cold water on the matter beforehand, saying how difficult and impossible it will all be, so that they can secure better terms from the Government and better consequences. It may be that these people are right, and that Lord Hunt was wise to warn us on a number of occasions that nothing will happen so dramatically, fast or disastrously as some of the proponents of both sides of the argument have tended to suggest.
I wish to concentrate on the potential benefit for the system providers and British industry generally, as that is the most important consideration of the debate. This is the point that has developed. Although the Home Secretary opened the debate, correctly, the aspect of industry is one that the House has begun to focus upon. It is unfair to accuse Lord Hunt of not focusing on this aspect sufficiently, as paragraph 102 of his report makes it clear that he was not asked to do so. However, the Government


would be wise to proceed on a more cautious and measured timetable, as was suggested by the Home Secretary today, since that would fit in well with the time scale of the Eden committee which is considering industrial standards.
The key consideration is that Britain has a potential world lead in fibre optics which is the lead technology for the cable systems, and in the switched star network, which is the lead topology. It is a pleasure to see that companies such as GEC, Plessey, and STC, not to mention Mullards in my constituency, are making great progress in fibre optics. It is also a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary here, because I know that he paid a visit to Mullards recently.
British Telecom is also developing the switched star topology through its feasibility study at Milton Keynes. This is where the greatest opportunities lie for home and export markets, provided that the Government give more backing to fibre optics. In that connection, I was delighted to read in the Financial Times today of the support for fibre optics being raised by £30 million. I congratulate the Minister on that.
The Government must give support to the important technology of laser semi-conductor technology so that we can do the switching on a more advanced basis similar to that planned in Japan.
Provided that we do not make a false, economy of deciding now to do in a hurry something that would be based essentially on yesterday's system by the time it got going, we should do well to eschew what is called the American tree-and-branch coaxial choice. We should go as hard and as clearly as we can for tomorrow's system, which is the British star system based on fibre optics. That carries the agreement of both sides of the House, and I have noticed that a number or hon. Members have said that in the debate. It would do more for jobs and growth and would improve our export prospects.
It has been suggested that this system would be dramatically more expensive, but the information given to me is that it would be about only 15 per cent. more expensive, which over the long term is not significant, and there might be a differential in time of between one and two years. We are talking about technology that is likely to be with us for the rest of the century, and into the following century, so it seems to me that it will be a small adjustment for the benefit of this much greater long-term advantage.
The Government are right not to allow themselves to be bounced into premature decisions that we might live to regret. We should proceed with all deliberate speed. If we do so along the technological lines that I have suggested, that would be in the best, wider public interests, which was the main thing that the Hunt report was set up to look into.

9 pm

Mr. John Garrett: The method, speed and technology of cabling in Britain and the future course of cable systems in this country are the most important industrial policy decisions to be taken by any Government since the war. The consequences will roll ahead beyond our time and into the next century. The prospects and progress of new industries far over the horizon will be determined by the decisions that we take. We must have a systematic and objective discussion of the options. Britain's success in international markets will be influenced massively by those decisions. They will

determine other areas of policy in data processing, transmission, telecommunications and publishing as well as having widespread social and economic consequences.
The technology of cabling is a critically important subject in its own right. I think that it should have been debated separately after the Government had produced a consultative paper. The issue of the effects of cable television on public standards in broadcasting is itself the subject of the greatest public concern and should be disentangled from the technological issues. They have been confused intentionally by the Government, who wish to quieten genuine fears about the quality of entertainment and broadcasting with the promise of a great new industrial advance.
The Hunt committee was not asked to address itself to those issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, it quickly dismissed the idea of British Telecom as a common carrier as
unlikely, as it is inconsistent with the Government's policy on competition and its expressed view that cabling should not make significant demands on public expenditure.
In other words, the idea is inconsistent with a transient political ideology and a probably transient set of accounting conventions.
Our national policy on cabling Britain must be viewed more seriously than that. Apparently, next March the Eden committee will report on the technical considerations of cabling. So far, it has issued an interim report of just two sentences. The Library tells me that it is so short that it was never published. It states:
Subject to one or two areas requiring subsequent infilling, appropriate drafts of British Standards will be available on or about 1 March 1983. The working group assured Ministers that these gaps would not prevent new systems from being designed and installed.
That is all that we have to go on in the crucial area of technical standards.
The letter inviting Dr. Eden to chair the committee asked him to consider the principal topological and technical options by March 1983, but began by saying that Ministers intend taking decisions on wide-band cable systems by the end of the year.
The significant feature of the handling of the issue is the tremendous hurry that the Government are in, matched or prompted by the hectic pressure from existing cable interests for permission to proceed. The Government are in a rush because they want to look progressive and imaginative. They also have the real problem that Britain's share in world trade in information technology equipment is falling as the market for the equipment is rapidly expanding. Currently, we have 3·8 per cent. of world exports and on one reliable estimate the figure will fall to 2·4 per cent. by 1990 unless we innovate. By that time the market will be worth £150 billion per year.
British industry has already missed out on the video recorder boom. The domestic market will double again this year to £400 million, making our video recorder market the fastest growing market in the world. We have no significant domestic manufacturer.
The Government also need a tangible success in information technology. The Government's schemes are taking a long time to pull through manufacturing investment, as one would expect in a recession. What is being done by the Department of Industry is largely being undone by the Department of Education and Science.
The existing cable companies are also in a rush because they see multi-channel networks arriving in the nick of time. According to the chairman of British Electric Traction, which owns 63 per cent. of Rediffusion, that company's cable operations are now running at a loss, and
plans for dismantling are lying on the table".
Some 70 per cent. of its present cables are 20 to 30 years old and are obsolescent. The cable companies think that once direct broadcasting by satellite is in operation in 1986 it will be more difficult for new cable systems to be established. The viewer with a £200 dish antenna will be able to receive two BBC channels, up to three commercial channels and foreign signals, including, I understand, the five, probably leased to Americans, via the Irish satellite wavelengths. Paying for cable looks a much less attractive proposition in that situation. By 1985 there will be 50 per cent. market penetration of video recorders as well.
The cable companies also want the franchises before a change in Government policy can occur. The result has been a gold rush by the cable companies. I have never received so many expensive brochures or been invited to so many meetings by so many people who sincerely want to be rich.
Those companies are urging on the Government what Lord Weinstock, in an excellent analysis in the Financial Times last week, called
the quick buck option … apparently based on the twin assumptions that advertising revenues are unlimited and 'adult movies' will always find a ready market.
To digress, not long ago I heard a cable company executive explain that his company would provide a channel devoted entirely to adult movies which he exemplified as such productions as "The Bitch", "The Stud" and "Emmanuelle". I understand that those are what are known as "soft porn", as distinct from what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) described as mid-porn and adventure porn—which I suppose has something to do with outward bound courses—as supplied by American cable television. Whether they are titillating or not is in dispute, but it seems to be generally agreed that they are grossly demeaning to women and an outrage to family viewing. The Hunt report's suggestion that they could be controlled by means of a daft electronic lock is wholly objectionable and inapplicable.
However, the quick buck option also has technological implications. It means handing out franchises to cable companies not only as cable operators but as cable providers, builders and owners of the distribution network. That in turn is likely to mean a network design or topology—the so-called tree-and-branch system—which will soon be technically obsolete and, in Lord Weinstock's words,
is simply incompatible with a national broad band interactive network.
That is to say, it is incompatible with the national structure that we shall require if we are to exploit the potentialities of cable to the full.
The technology wanted by the cable companies was cheaper—it may no longer be so—is available now, that is for sure, but depends on imported equipment and has no future.
In yesterday's Financial Times the chairman of Visionhire wrote that it did not follow that private sector investment would lead to the adoption of tree-and-branch technology. However, Visionhire's evidence to the Hunt committee was that operators would
want to use proven systems that justify investment.

We can draw our own conclusions from that.
Before succumbing to the quick buck merchants, the Government should stand back and consider our national aims. I understand that the Department of Industry now has management arrangements for doing so. I read that the Minister has set out his Department's policy aims and is now requiring the divisions in his Department to set out their objectives. In other words, he has instituted management by objectives. That is progressive. I commend it to my right hon. Friends. In the late 1960s I spent years trying to get Government Departments to adopt management by objectives. It is an excellent vehicle for systematic management and policy making. Let us follow the logic of management by objectives now.
I read in the same article that one of the Minister's aims with the highest priority—aim number three—is innovation to apply technology on the scale necessary to ensure United Kingdom competitiveness. That breaks down into two sub aims. First, to gear research and development to United Kingdom needs, and, secondly, to develop awareness and rapid adoption of key technologies.
Surely a strategy that follows from that group of aims would be to construct a broad-band national network, an electronic grid—what Lord Weinstock called
the communications equivalent of the electrical power grid and distribution system—
as the basis for a coherent broadcasting, telecommunications and information technology strategy. In that way broad-band networks provided initially for television entertainment could be developed to sustain future communications services using the latest British technology.
Such a strategy need not be implemented in one massive effort but could be developed as demand and resources allow. First, there could be local networks, then satellite bands and telecommunications carried through the same cable systems, and then the integration of local networks into a national system. This strategy, like the quick buck option, also carries with it a network design or topology. This is the switched multi-star network, which is most suitable for the technology of the future, using optical fibres, and it is infinitely adaptable for every imaginable use.
Whereas the tree-and-branch system proposed by the cable companies uses the outdated American technology of coaxial cable, for which virtually all the attachments such as amplifiers and set-top descramblers will have to be imported, the switched multi-star system uses British optical fibre technology in which British Telecom leads the world. Indeed, optical fibre development has been supported by the Government to the tune of £25 million—until today, when it was raised to £55 million.
The electrical engineering Neddy has drawn our attention to the advantages of a star network over a tree-and-branch network. First, there is the ability to increase the capacity of the network easily, by increasing the capacity of the trunk route only, without needing to replace the distribution cables in the subscriber network. Secondly, the star networks can be upgraded to offer interactive facilities, up to and including two-way video. Thirdly, there is security of information, as bank balances and credit ratings do not pass down the neighbours' cables. The subscribers do not need the descrambler which is required on the tree-and-branch system. Therefore, there


would be no black market in illegal descramblers, which could steal programmes. Moreover, the quality of the television picture should be better.
The Electrical Engineering Neddy goes on:
In the US nearly all networks are 'tree and branch' design … and when requirements for more sophisticated services have emerged, these have had to be grafted onto the existing entertainment service as best they could".

Mr. Gorst: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House, if we were to adopt his seductive proposals, how long it would take to get the coverage of this country that we would have if we used the other system which he does not like as much?

Mr. Garrett: The time scale for cabling half of the United Kingdom by the method I describe is about 10 years. I have no idea of the time scale of cabling Britain by giving one cable company Wigan, another one Norwich and another one Manchester. What does that matter, if those companies adopt the wrong technology, which would give us no lead in world markets?
If we follow the route advocated by the cable companies, we shall be locked in the technological past. If we take the optical fibre and star system route, we shall have a network that can evolve into interactive and comprehensive communications services.
It is true that the optical fibre technology is not sufficiently developed for the implementation of a full multi-star system, but it soon will be. In the next few weeks, British Telecom will place a contract for the production of several hundred switches, each capable of serving about 30 homes. In the meantime, British Telecom's hybrid system, using mixed coaxial and fibre cabling, can be used now and converted fully to fibre optics in two to four years. That is the approach recommended by the electrical engineering Neddy last week, which concluded:
It is only by this means that the full benefits for both the cable and equipment suppliers and the UK as a whole can be achieved".

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, and I go along with much of what he says—in fact, I said as much in my speech on the technological aspects—but he should not say that all the private enterprise companies which are involved in cable television want to go for a tree-and-branch system based on American conventional technology. That is not true. Rediffusion, for example, is quite happy to accept the star system, as he has outlined it.

Mr. Garrett: It will not be able to. I quoted the managing director of Visionhire in yesterday's Financial Times as saying—contrary to his evidence to the Hunt committee—that he was no longer necessarily wedded to the tree-and-branch system. Companies such as these will have to go for the tree-and-branch system to get off the ground quickly enough to get the market lead that they want, here and now. That is what the rush is all about. If they do it as quickly as possible, they will buy imported American technology off the shelf.
Who will provide the cable? The technology and even the aims of the Minister's Department lead directly to BT

as the common carrier, developer and owner of the cable system or as the cable provider to the individual franchise holders.
First, BT has the statutory authority to lay the cable and the ducts and cabinets that will be necessary. There will be no need for local authorities to grant new wayleaves or for substantial new trench digging. BT already has the necessary trunk network to transfer programmes from one cable network to another.
Secondly, BT has more experience of the installation and maintenance of cable than any other organisation in the country. It is the world leader in fibre optic technology as a result of the research that was carried out at Martlesham Heath. I suspect that all hon. Members agree with that.
Thirdly, if BT provides the cable, ownership problems are avoided if the franchise holder loses his franchise. The separation of cable operator and programme provider would also facilitate a multiplicity of programme providers on each cable system. Channel 4 evidence to Hunt was:
to avoid permanent local monopolies of programme provision we consider it essential that means are found of separating the two functions.
The cable lasts for 20 to 25 years and Hunt suggests that franchises should be for 8 to 10 years.
Finally, BT will cable Britain with a superior fibre optic system anyway. It has already commenced such an investment programme. It has started with a trunk network and it is now moving towards a local network, covering Britain with just such a fibre optic system. If we allow cable companies to go down the dead end of copper technology, in order to get into the market fast, we shall have an inferior cable network alongside BT's optical fibre network which will carry all the same data.
There is another reason for having a national cable grid run by BT to BT standards. The conventional wisdom is that multiband cabling will be for entertainment and for domestic interactive service, such as home to bank, home to shop, meter reading and security services. The development of domestic interactive services is overrated and oversold. It was oversold in the ITAP report—an exceptionally poorly researched piece of work. As The Guardian pointed out, it was written entirely by people with vested interests who stood to make a hefty profit out of a privately run system. That report said that
one of the most popular applications of cable systems in the USA is security services".
On examination of the facts, it transpires that less than 0·001 per cent. of cable systems are used for that purpose. Only 16,000 homes out of 24 million connected to cable have a security system. It is not in interactive systems within the community that cable systems will grow in the medium term. The demand will come from interactive data transmissions between the professional and commercial communities—the creation and organisation of access to data bases or reservoirs of specialist information. The legal community already has Lexis and Eurolex. They are data bases on legislation and case law. They are a commentary into which the legal profession can tap to carry out research.
Before long, there will be the Adonis system—a data base of technical and scientific material from journals and publications that can be interrogated. It will include


journals and publications published anywhere in the world. Research units at universities or anywhere else will be able to tap in to that information.
There should be a data base of consumer law and DHSS consumer regulations for citizens advice bureaux, lawyers and Members of Parliament. There will be others for engineers, architects and doctors. Publishing and library services will be revolutionalised by that type of interrogation of data bases. That will not follow the use of cable for entertainment; it will happen almost in parallel with it. It is almost happening now.
Cabling Britain by small-scale cable operators makes no contribution in that area. The cost of developing a national network on the ITAP calculations will be about £70 a household, and the cost of wiring up the country will be about £700 million. In the early years it would cost about £50 million a year. That is an increase of 2 per cent. on BT's current investment programme of £2·38 billion. British Telecom will be spending sums of that magnitude in any case to modernise its systems.
Let us compare such a strategy with the view of one cable company, Visionhire, as given to the Hunt committee:
BT has proposed that cable be extended to almost every home … This is an uneconomic waste of resources, will force city-dwellers to subsidise others and inevitably slow the pace of development. Cable television should not be regarded as a service to be universally provided".
That is certainly a novel view of the national interest. Visionhire further states:
BT have no experience of laying down modern speculative commercial networks. Cable networks are not laid and forgotten. They require constant attention and activity".
The idea that Visionhire has more technical expertise than British Telecom in running modem cable networks must surely be a joke. Certainly the electrical engineering Neddy does not agree.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend is perhaps being a little unfair to Visionhire. The idea is not so novel. It is exactly the nineteenth-century view—that telephones, electricity, gas and so on were to be provided only in the centres of the cities for the prosperous.

Mr. Garrett: It is certainly wrong, but I always take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) on the nineteenth century.
Some cable operators are looking wider. The Merseyside Cablevision Consortium, for instance, proposes that British Telecom should be a member and main contractor or "cable provider". It proposes a hybrid network of tree-and-branch and star systems, gradually changing to a full interactive star system between 1985 and 1990, providing 30 channels, of which five will be two-way or interactive. The Merseyside solution with BT as a member of the consortium and the cable provider may be a way forward.
Another issue which may arise from the activities of independent cable operators was referred to in the Financial Times yesterday by the chairman of British Telecom. A cable operator may have spare capacity. His cables will pass business premises. What is to stop him offering voice telephony, data and text transmission facilities and other British Telecom services from business to business within his network? He will wish to skim the most profitable business from British Telecom, which will

still be expected to maintain the basic local network. That is potential "liberalisation" on an unprecedented scale, to which no Minister has ever referred.
An article in The Observer on 28 November said that the key bait already decided on is that cable operators will be allowed by their licences to operate British Telecom-type services. That is a very important matter, and I hope that the Minister will refer to it today.
Britain is not the only country on the verge of cabling. As usual, we can learn from the French. They have set about the matter in a way that serves their own national interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West pointed out. They have decided to cable the city of Biarritz using optical fibre cable, a star system and every available type of terminal—all provided by the French national telephone company. After a three-year trial period, they will assess the results and decide upon a standard system to be applied throughout France.
Thus, the French will progressively introduce an advanced and tested system based on experience of the services that individuals and businesses want, while we, if we take the independent cabling route, will have only bits and pieces—and they really will be bits and pieces. Cabling by independent companies all doing their own thing will be a mad rush, followed by a number of collapses and withdrawals, as in the United States. Market research shows that cable television will cost £10 to £20 per month, but that only 27 per cent. of viewers would be willing to pay as much as £5 per month. No doubt that will change. Nevertheless, after the shake-up that will almost certainly follow the initial rush, we shall be left with a piecemeal, obsolescent and backward system that will be enormously expensive to build into by electronic grid. Our system will be local, parochial and backward looking.
The choice for the Government is therefore to go for a broad-band switched-star fibre optic national network, which gives Britain a world lead, uses British technology and is capable of expansion to cope with every kind of transmission of information, or the quick-buck, out-moded, imported technology, inflexible, dead-end system that merely suits a clutch of desperate cable operators. I am trying to follow the logic of the Minister's aim as stated in his management by objective system. I am not snaking political points. This is a technical discussion. The logic leads to the former—the national electronic grid. I have no doubt that the Government will choose the latter and put private profit first and the national interest second.
We have made it clear that we shall entrust the provision of the national cable system to British Telecom. We shall re-establish control of any national cable system by British Telecom.
Despite what the Home Secretary said about the options remaining open and the speech that the Prime Minister will make next Wednesday being another opportunity to test the market, I fear that at the information technology conference on 8 December, to which none of the Opposition Front Bench has been invited, which is a grave discourtesy, the Prime Minister will indicate, if not announce, a charter for the private cable interests—the cable cowboys. It will be a charter to pour audio visual rubbish into our living rooms through systems which will qualify as industrial archaeology. If so, in years to come, the Government will be seen to have betrayed the national interest.

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): This is the second occasion on which the House has debated cable. I believe that there is probably broad agreement on the fact that cable will come and that it will be welcome, but there is considerable disagreement as to how it should come, the time it should come and who should do it. There is not complete agreement, although I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) is the sole exception. He finds the whole business of cable so distasteful that he would like to see it go away.

Mr. Critchley: Quite right.

Mr. Baker: However, most other hon. Members would like to see it happen. In my enthusiasm for cable, I am sometimes portrayed as dragging my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary kicking and screaming into the cable revolution. That is not just physically impossible; it is temperamentally unnecessary. I assure the House that we would not have reached as far as we have with this cable debate and proposal to move into cable if it had not been for the Home Secretary's enthusiastic support.
I want to make it clear at the outset that the Government are not prepared to see the introduction of wide-band cable systems merely in terms of the provision of entertainment. The range of new non-broadcasting services is the raison d'etre for the expansion, and that is why, as Minister with responsibility for information technology, I am so enthusiastic.
The main characteristics of cable systems that we should like to see are, first, they must from the outset have a two-way capability—that requirement will be mandatory. In particular, they should be able to provide subscribers with access at a minimum to 25 to 30 downstream video channels, including teletext and direct broadcasting by satellite services. They must also provide audio channels and at least one return video channel and two-way data channels, some of which should have a signalling rate of 80 kilobits per second. Those are high standards.
For the return video channel and the data channels, systems must allow for more than one subscriber to have simultaneous access. We are not talking about tired old systems; we are moving to an entirely new generation of technology. British industry is well placed to meet the home demand and to capitalise on that to build up export markets.
Cable systems are of course telecommunication systems, so I must deal with the important question of telecommunications policy or, to put it another way, the role of British Telecom and Mercury. It would be appropriate for me to outline what we shall say in the White Paper.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the hon. Gentleman still taking part in the consultative debate described by the Home Secretary or announcing what will be in the White Paper?

Mr. Baker: I am trying to show what the Government's thinking is. That will help all the interests, including BT, which has pressed the Government for some time to clarify the policy.
BT undoubtedly has many strengths and advantages in cabling. It is experienced in operating telecommunications networks, including the networks by which the BBC and

IBA programmes reach the transmitters. It has an infrastructure of underground ducts which covers most of the country. Its research laboratories at Martlesham are the most advanced in Europe, and it has highly experienced and qualified staff.
During the past few months we have received many representations about BT's involvement in wideband cable systems. There have been strong arguments that BT should not be allowed to have any role whatsoever in the expansion. The legal constraints placed upon A T & T in America, which prevent it from joining in cable operations, have frequently been drawn to my attention. On the other hand, many argue—including the Opposition, BT, the Post Office Engineering Union and Lord Weinstock—that BT, or possibly BT and Mercury, should be the only organisations licensed to instal new cable systems and to operate them on a common carrier basis.
Incidentally, the most amazing part of the debate was the fulsome praise larded by the Opposition on Lord Weinstock. It must be one of the most remarkable conversions of the year. Only recently they said that his stewardship of GEC was so bad that GEC should be nationalised. No doubt they would have sacked him on the first day. Now he is a Daniel come to judgment.
Both BT and Mercury would welcome the exclusive right to provide switched two-way services, even on cable systems in which they have played no part in financing. The Government cannot accept the case for giving to BT and Mercury the exclusive privilege of either installing switched cable systems or providing switched two-way services; that is a mandatory or statutory role in every consortium.
However, it would be wrong to exclude either BT or Mercury from competing freely with others for the provision of cable networks throughout the country. Their skills will bring out the best competitive spirit in other would-be cable providers, and the pressure of the market place will be a spur to BT and Mercury. I think it likely that many cable consortia will wish to have BT or Mercury as a member or to provide the cable infrastructure. That is good. But those consortia that do not wish to link up with BT or Mercury must be free to act as they wish, subject to two important provisos.
First, we recognise that BT and Mercury are uniquely well placed to link individual cable systems and we intend that the inter-city or inter-network trunk linking of cable systems, for example, linking the Bristol and Newcastle cable systems, should be the exclusive province of BT and Mercury. Secondly, we have had to consider whether there should be a limit on services that the cable operator can provide.
We have had to weigh up the stimulus to the development of new information services which this would provide with the impact which this competition might have on the revenues of BT and Mercury. This may well be small and more than balanced by the additional revenue which will accrue to BT and Mercury by allowing them the sole right to inter-city or inter-network traffic. However, we have recognised their concern and have decided that only where BT or Mercury is involved in a cable network may a cable operator provide voice telephony services. With the exception of voice telephony, however, a cable operator may offer an unrestricted range of switched two-way services on the cable system for which a franchise has been granted.
My hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) and East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson-Smith) and many other Members talked about the complicated subject of network architecture. A great debate has been taking place on network architecture and the sound of the grinding of axes has sometimes been deafening.
The matter is by no means as simple as the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) said. He suggested that the cable interests want tree and branch and that the telecommunications interests do not. There are some cable companies that are advocating switched star systems. I apologise for the technicalities in this part of my reply. I have great sympathy with Members who get bogged down in the talk about rings, stars, hybrids, trees and branches.
The tree-and-branch system, as the name implies, is like a tree with a head-end—the base—and signals are fed in and transmitted along the trunk. The signals are split successively at branches and delivered to each subscriber. A key feature of the system is that all the services are available at the same time over the whole of the system. The subscriber at his home has an elaborate decoder at his television set with which he selects the channel. The decoder could also be a descrambler, which could restrict access to certain facilities.
I remind hon. Members that tree-and-branch systems were invented in Britain, although they are often referred to as American technology. Much of the technology remains in Britain. They were invented in this country as an effective means of using coaxial cable to carry simultaneously a number of television and radio channels instead of devoting a pair of copper telephone wires to each channel.
Many commentators have overlooked that tree-and-branch systems have by no means reached the limit of their development and that they are capable of providing virtually all of the interactive services with the exception of viewphone. For example, a tree-and-branch system comprising half a million subscribers—a very large system—can relay the contents of an A4 page from any 5,000 subscribers to any other 5,000 subscribers within three seconds, and by "polling"—checking the whole network—the system can check the burglar alarms of 500,000 subscribers once a second. Furthermore, at least one British company considers that it could adapt the technology of teletext, in which Britain has a world lead, to provide the functions of control and addressability that would be central to new cable systems.
The rival to the tree-and-branch systems is the star-switched system which the ITAP report mentioned. In this, only the trunk part is fully wide-band cable and this leads to a number of switching points which in turn are linked to subscribers. This means that the selection of the service is done at the switching point—not at the set—and therefore there is no need for a decoder at the television set. Such a switched system will be more expensive to install, partly because it would use more cable and require more ducting. Estimates that I have received suggest that the overall cost of fully switched systems exceed those of tree and branch by between 50 and 150 per cent.
Supporters of switched systems claim that they are easier to maintain, need less sophisticated converters and give greater security for the development of two-way services such as home banking. Furthermore, as a newly emerging technology, it offers British industry an early opportunity for exports. A star configuration for all

systems will stimulate optical fibre development, encouraging the introduction of optical fibre at the earliest possible moment. I think that that is probably agreed by all hon. Members.
However, the technology is still under development. I believe that star switched systems will he the pattern of the future, but it is always difficult to predict the direction in which technology will go. If we were to require all systems to be star switched, we would delay the expansion of wide-band cable systems by two to three years or even longer.
We must be aware of what is likely to happen and we have it in mind that the ducts for all new cable systems should be laid out in a star configuration so that they can evolve without undue difficulty into fully switched systems once switches are available. The ducting arrangements would need to be designed to enable this. This approach means that the initial construction costs of the systems are likely to be a relatively small amount more than they would otherwise be.
We do not believe that it would be right to require would-be operators to use a particular technology, whether tree and branch or fully switched star. They and not the Government should decide on the system to be installed. Operators, therefore, will have a choice of providing a tree-and-branch system in star configuration or laying down a switched system from the start. We want to encourage the most advanced technology and we therefore have it in mind that licences for the cable provider—not the cable operator—will be of differing lengths.
This would work as follows: the initial licence for a tree-and-branch system laid down in the star configuration but without switches would be for a period of 12 years. If at a later date a cable provider were to install switches, the licence could be extended to a total of 20 years. A cable provider installing a fully switched star system from the outset would receive a licence for 20 years.
I am sorry to have dealt in such detail with these technicalities. We have tried to weigh all the different considerations. I think that we have arrived at the right answer. I am confirmed in that thought by the view expressed by British Telecom in the application that it has made, with others, to lay cable on Merseyside. It has stated:
BT's long-term strategy is to develop a hybrid network which combines tree and branch and star elements.
That is exactly what our proposals would achieve.
Much of the pioneering work in optic fibres has been done in the United Kingdom. The breakthrough was made by a British mathematician of Hong Kong birth in 1966 in England. We still retain a world lead in much fibre optic technology. Optical fibres have many advantages. They are small and light and they are not affected by external magnetic fields. They have a wide band width and so can carry a wider range of telecommunications services than copper cables. However, modern copper coaxial systems can carry 30 or more television channels and literally thousands of narrow band services such as teleshopping and audio.
Fibre optic cable is particularly effective over long distances because it needs fewer repeaters. For the short local distribution links from the local switching points to the home, which comprise a high proportion of the total cable in a system, fibre optic cable at present is still more expensive than coaxial. Fibre can be used for local distribution, but the economics are not yet right. More


technical development is required as well as the development of the high volume production of optical components and devices.
It is not just a question of laying fibre optic cable. The most elaborate devices, such as optoelectronic and laser devices, are needed to drive the signals along. One cannot have the fibre without all that. A great deal of research is being done on optoelectronic devices in Britain. In the longer term, I have no doubt that fibre optics will play the dominant role in cable systems. Last year, the Department of Industry committed £25 million under the fibre optics scheme to support the development of the industry. Yesterday, I increased that to £40 million and, in addition, I launched a further scheme of £15 million for joint industry and university development. The scheme was new last year. I increased it yesterday because applications from industry had exhausted the funds. I remind the House that the money we are spending in that respect is very good seed-corn, because it must be matched by twice as much from industry. I was very pleased that industry applied for the funds on that scale.
However, to require all cable systems to use fibre optics as a transmission medium throughout the whole system—I emphasise that-from the cable head-end to the television set in the home, would delay the introduction of wide-band cable systems for several years and would be of no service to the industry. Indeed, the existing British fibre optic suppliers have urged a market-led demand for their product, rather than a requirement that fibre optic be used throughout. That is wise and has been confirmed by my observations in the past year.
Last year I went to Germany and saw Bundespost and Siemens. It was planning, and is still planning, a total fibre optic network across Germany, with the full facilities. However, it said that it was unlikely to be laid until the latter part of the decade. The new German Government, realising the opportunities that exist in cable, have not abandoned that scheme, but have said that they wish to proceed with cable on a mixed fibre optic and copper coaxial network. That is the only way that cable systems can be laid in the course of the next two, three or four years. Some play was made of Biarritz but, as with most things French, rhetoric must be divorced from reality. The French talk a lot about laying down fibre optic cable systems, but when I talk to their Ministers they say with a nudge and a wink that they will put down a lot of copper coaxial as well to link in. The technology does not yet exist to take fibre optic on a commercial scale right through to the home.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: How many manufacturers of fibre optic cable does the Minister envisage in Britain?

Mr. Baker: At present, there are four manufacturers of fibre optic cable in Britain. Several other companies—both large and small—make optoelectronic devices. We are totally self-sufficient in fibre optic cable and have a capacity to export. Therefore, we are not inclined at present to require optical fibre to be installed throughout all cable systems. The continuing improvements in price and performance of optical fibre will, however, make it only a matter of time before the choice of cable material becomes academic. The decisions that I have announced on fibre optic will make it very attractive in the long runs of cable systems. The star configuration

in which cable systems will have to be laid out means that it will be very economic to lay fibre optic in them. I emphasise, however, since I have seen some misleading reports that suggest otherwise, that in adopting this attitude we are not limiting the development of cable systems; there is no service, irrespective of band width requirements, that cannot be satisfactorily carried out on either type of cable.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend able to say any more about support for laser technology, which he referred to earlier? I am sure that that must play an important part.

Mr. Baker: Support for research and development in laser technology is covered by the fibre optic scheme and several of the proposals that we have approved have involved laser technology.
Technical standards are critically important for the systems. The present standards are not suitable for the new cable systems and we cannot read across to the American standards, where the systems are very different. We aim to produce standards in a suitable draft form that will be available by March 1983. It is a tight timetable. We have established a technical working group that has been in operation since the summer under the chairmanship of Dr. Eden. It has been asked to provide standards for every service, including interactive services other than voice telephony. Those standards will become the appropriate British standards once they have passed through the normal consultative procedures of the British Standards Institution.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to two particular requirements that I have asked the technical working group to observe. The first is that existing UHF television sets should be compatible with all approved cable systems. The reason is that if a television set is attached to a cable system in one town and the owner moves to another town, it must be compatible with the cable system there.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the signals be digital, and will there be a transfer to normal signals so that they can be picked up afterwards, or will digital wait?

Mr. Baker: I think that the answer to my hon. Friends first question is "Yes", but I shall confirm that. That is the sort of question that the Eden committee is looking into.
Secondly, I am sure that the House would not wish to see cable systems develop as a series of islands that cannot be linked to one another. This was raised by some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). This has happened in the United States, and is one of the reasons why interactive services have been relatively slow to develop there. I have therefore required that every cable system must be compatible through its head-end with the standards of the trunk transmission networks of BT and Mercury. In this way, over time, the development of a nationwide wideband cable network should be assisted.
When we have this menu of standards, we then intend to specify to would-be operators those standards that must be met by their systems and those standards that need to be met only if and when certain services are offered. In this way, British manufacturers will also be given the earliest possible guidance in the development of related equipment.
I assure the House that when we come to determine the capabilities to be incorporated into cable systems we intend to take a very firm and long view. We would be mad to see the streets dug up now for the installation of cable systems only to have the process repeated in a few years because demand had outstripped cable capacity. The physical lifetime of wide-band cable switched systems is 20 years or so, and the standards that are set must ensure that technological advances during that period can be accommodated.
Let me now deal with some of the points, other than technology points, that have arisen, particularly those relating to public broadcasting.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) argued that cable would divide the country between the rich and poor and the urban and the rural. I do not think that I misinterpreted his argument. I am surprised that he made it, because the same argument was made by the BBC about three months ago. It has now stopped making it. The right hon. Gentleman must have got hold of a rather old brief. This is an old argument that does not stand up to any examination. When I heard him speak about how this would divide the country, I could not help recalling some of the debates on independent television in 1953. A former Labour Cabinet Minister then said:
People are only a market when they are gathered together in big centres of population, and it is only there that commercial television will have any interest at all".—[Official Report, 15 December 1953; Vol. 522, c. 319.]
Events have shown that forecast to be totally valueless and discredited. I believe that forecasts that cable will not spread to the rural areas are equally wrong. In fact, the development of technology assists the spread.
When the BBC has its DBS, it will be able to bring to remote areas the DBS services on that satellite and send signals down to a small town or village from which the cable can go out from that head-end. One of the largest and most geographically spread countries—Canada—has one of the highest levels of cabling in the world. That is available by satellite communication to small settlements and villages in the Yukon and cabling out from a cable head-end. Therefore, I do not subscribe to the view that cable will not spread to the rural areas.
The other argument that has tended to flit in and out of the debate is that cabling will hit minority interests. Once again, going back to 1953, it was another Labour Minister who forecast that many of the services to which people had become accustomed would go to the wall. The services that he predicted would go under were Shakespeare, ballet, tennis and snooker. Those four areas have grown the fastest since independent television came along.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has done well in replying to the debate in 1953. Will he identify the hon. Members who have today made the point to which he now imagines that he is replying?

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman does not know those hon. Members because he has hardly been present during the debate. He has flitted in and out. He will be able to read Hansard tomorrow and see for himself.

Mr. Sheerman: rose—

Mr. Baker: The other argument that has tended to wend its way through the debate was mentioned by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and by

my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here.") My hon. Friend has cut himself off. He has disappeared. It is clear, however, that the shadow of Lord Reith stalks in Aldershot. My hon. Friend was very much in favour of improving standards and of ensuring that they should not fall. He argued that the only way to retain standards was through close regulation. The argument about what people should be allowed to watch and what they should not be allowed to watch has been raised many times today. Hearing that argument, I cannot help recalling the views of Harold Laski on one occasion—

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Mr. Baker: I do not wish to deprive Opposition Members of hearing the words of a former chairman of their party. He was asked once—

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Harold Laski, a person of whom I am fond, died in 1950. This is a phoney point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Baker: Before Mr. Laski died, he made this comment on "The Archers". I quote it only because it sums up the attitude implicit in that of many Opposition Members. The attitude still prevails. He said:
If the BBC does not give people what they want, it should be exterminated. If this"—
meaning "The Archers"—
is what they want, they should be exterminated.
The attitude which he expressed and which was redolent in the views of several Opposition Members today is that they know best and that they should choose what people look at. I have much greater confidence in the choice and discrimination of the viewing public than do Opposition Members.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: rose—

Mr. Freud: rose—

Mr. English: rose—

Mr. Baker: Finally, I should like to say to the House why the Government want to press on with cabling. We have been challenged many times during the debate about the speed at which we are moving. The reason we want to move quickly is that if we get ahead with cabling more jobs will be created. There will be jobs in making cable and laying cable, in creating programmes and in making equipment. Every time the Opposition seek delay, they will be putting off the day when jobs can come to places like Merseyside as a result of cabling. When the Opposition ask for delay, they are asking for fewer jobs because the jobs opportunities of cable will be considerable.
When the Labour Party says that it wants a winter of debate, that will lead to a spring of analysis, a summer of indecision and an autumn of postponement. We much prefer to get on and provide the opportuntities that cabling will give. I am certain that the programme we have debated and discussed today represents one of the great opportunities that lies before our country. We must not lose it. We must seize it, and we must get on with it as soon as possible.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Companies Registration Office

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thompson.]

10 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to bring before the House a matter of great importance throughout the United Kingdom—the question of access to company information and the proposals to privatise certain functions of the Companies Registration Office.
Parliament has granted to incorporated companies the protection of limited liability and it has balanced that in the interests of the public, including the business community, with a statutory right to the wider public of access to certain information held by the Registrar of Companies. When the process of the harmonisation of European law began, the first directive made it clear that the disclosure of company information was the fundamental principle used to enable the public, including the business community, to safeguard themselves.
With a record 300 limited companies per week going into liquidation, and almost certainly many more ceasing to trade, the existence for all of a service for company information throughout the country without delay was more than ever needed.
It became all too clear on Wednesday of last week why the Government were not prepared to protect the interests of the public in this matter, when the Minister, in a written answer, chose to announce a proposal to privatise the services of the Companies Registration Office. The announcement was made without consultation with the trade unions, which, only 48 hours previously, had been discussing with the permanent secretary the need to maintain good industrial relations in the Department. Furthermore, the Minister was obviously aware of the justified anger that the House would feel at the suggestion that the function of the Companies Registration Office should be privatised.
It is proper that that statement should be made to the House orally, and I shall make it on the Government's behalf and in the absence of their doing so. It said:
I am not satisfied that all the functions of the Companies Registration Office need to be carried out by a Government Department. I am inviting a number of companies and organisations to put forward their suggestions for taking over certain of the functions either by themselves or by other parties.
At the same time my Department is considering what steps would be beneficial for both user and the taxpayer. Any legislation is unlikely in the present Parliament, but I hope to bring forward proposals as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 24 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 504.]
For many years the Companies Registration Office has been profitable. It has made a surplus in every year since 1976. Last year costs totalled £13·6 million, but revenue amounted to £14·7 million. The only costs that have been created for the taxpayer have arisen from the debts of limited companies in general, which might have been avoided if a proper nationwide company information service had existed in the way that I and my hon. Friends have always suggested.
At no stage during the developments of the past two weeks has the Minister told the House how he sees any benefit to the user arising from this privatisation. That is very important. He should have told the House at the time when the announcement was made. We cannot even be sure that he has a nationwide view of the requirements of the user, who is also the taxpayer in this case.
The users are not just those who have large offices near Companies House in London and use red search tickets. These company search agents, who for many years have received special treatment with desks, office equipment and special rooms provided, have sought to prevent the wider public from getting a proper nationwide service.
The public interest must clearly be set against the narrow private interests of company search agents. Take Mr. Tony Jowett, a company agent, who boasted in the Financial Times last Thursday, when staking a claim to the privatised services, that his company is the largest user of Companies House, with a £4 million turnover and producing 350 publications a year. The trouble is that these agents long ago hijacked Companies House and applied its records for their own personal ends to the disadvantage of the wider public.
Now the Government propose to go even further and hand over major parts of the Companies Registration Office function to these narrow private interests. According to the Financial Times, they have reported that there would be talks with the London Chamber of Commerce. I say to everyone "beware". Every professional and business person in the country should know that when the Registry of Business Names was closed by the Government earlier this year, the London Chamber of Commerce opened a new, privatised, registry, which has no statutory basis. The result of this crass stupidity of the Government is that a search which used to cost 5p now costs—I checked this morning—£11·50. The same will happen to the Companies Registration Office. An article in the Standard last Friday quoted agents saying quite openly they would increase the charges. Prices will go through the roof. What has happened in the one instance of privatisation already seen will inevitably happen in the case of the Companies Registration Office if this nonsense goes ahead.
The press has had nothing good to say about the Government's proposal to privatise the Companies Registration Office. The Standard last Friday described it as
the Government's latest and most bizarre privatisation ploy
The Observer styled it:
the daftest piece of privatisation yet.
The public opposition to the proposals is very understandable, but I propose to point out to the House a legal objection which is deeply rooted in the spirit and letter of harmonised European company law.
I have mentioned the first directive of the European Communities on company law already If one looks at article 3, paragraph 3, in the official French text—it was published in 1968 and there is no official English text—one sees that it is clearly and unequivocally stated that for public companies—"plc's" as they are now known—the information held at the registry
must be obtainable by correspondence"—
that is by post—
at a price"—
and this is most important—
not exceeding the administrative costs thereof.
The HMSO unofficial English translation has introduced an ambiguity that does not exist in the official text. The original French text
etre obtenue par correspondance
was mistakenly translated as
must be obtainable by application in writing".
The correct translation is "by letter", not "in writing".
I have three different dictionary references for the words "par correspondance". One is from the Oxford Concise English-French dictionary, which refers to "correspondance" as "letters". The second comes from Harraps French-English dictionary, which refers to "verte par correspondance", meaning "postal trade". The third is another reference in Harraps French-English dictionary which refers to "avec correspondance" which means correspondence with someone "by letter". In a direct translation "correspondance" means "mail" or "post"; and there is another reference to "ouvrir la correspondance", meaning "to open the mail".
Of course, the price must not provide a profit. That is what is meant by
at a price not exceeding the administrative costs thereof
or, in the French text
sans que le coût de cette copie puisse être supérieur au coÛt administratif".
By the fourth directive in 1978 that principle was extended to medium and small-sized companies. As a result of the implementation of the European Communities Act 1972, those directives are already part of our law. Where there can be no profit—that is how I understand a real translation of the original French text—it is unlikely that there can be privatisation.
The beginnings of a nationwide public service operating at cost, as in the stated principle in the directive, was in sight earlier this year but was ultimately prevented by the private interests of company search agents and the Government. As a result of written questions that I asked, to be found in Hansard on 29 January 1982 and 22 March 1982, it transpired that the demand for company microfiche at the Companies Registration Office had dropped significantly, following changes at Companies House, to just over half the previous level of demand. Even at that, 83 per cent. of searches at Cardiff and London Companies House were carried out by agents mainly for their publications, which is not the reason why Companies House came into existence.
Those changes resulted in an agreement, reached on 25 May at a meeting of four provincial public librarians with a representative of the Companies Registration Office and the senior library adviser at the Office of Arts and Libraries, to provide a postal sales service to six public libraries initially and for company records on microfiche to be made available. Microfiche are cheap to reproduce and to post. The six public libraries were Aberdeen, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Shropshire. All welcomed the agreement, recognising its importance to the whole country. The service was to be later expanded to more public libraries
The new service was to be based on a service that had operated for six months at Liverpool city libraries in 1978, which, in the words of the librarian, Mr. Edwin Fleming, had been extremely successful, and which had been terminated suddenly by the Registrar of Companies because of a sudden dramatic increase in demand for company microfiche from the agents in London. Some people believe that they deliberately set out to undermine the library scheme. The agents had successfully terminated a service that the Registrar admitted had been a success in many replies to complainants from the North-West who wrote to him when the service ended. It was stopped none the less. Again the public interest suffered.
Therefore, it was not surprising when, at the beginning of October, a company search agent in Cardiff, Mr. Farr,

telephoned two of the libraries involved in the latest agreement to say that the Companies Registration Office agreement to provide the postal service through non-profit-making public libraries was off. That is understandable, I suppose, when in the minutes of the meeting of the users group committee with the Registrar on 14 September the objections of the agents to the library service are clearly noted. That service would have been within the principles of the clearly stated requirements of harmonised European company law. The European objective is clear. It is to create conditions under which Community-wide trade can operate in the safe knowledge that the public, wherever they are in the Community, can get the company information that they need at the lowest possible cost,
or at a price not exceeding the administrative costs thereof",
to quote the 1968 directive.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his hasty decision on privatisation of the Companies Registration Office and not to hold further discussions with company agents on the subject. It is contrary to the spirit and letter of EC company law and against the public interest. It is also an affront to those of us who have lent our support to the Community over the years.
Additionally I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to appeal to professional and business groups throughout the United Kingdom to write to me to express their views on the Government's proposal. If the Government insist on proceeding, we intend to press our objections to the utmost. Any help that the business community can provide will be appreciated by my hon. Friends.
It has been brought to my attention that some Members of this House have commercial links with search agent firms. May I have a clear assurance from the Minister that, whatever the result of his deliberations, no part of the CRO's activities will be sold to those organisations with which hon. Members have commercial connections? May we also be told whether legislation is required by any Government to proceed with this privatisation?
If the Government are to proceed with this scatterbrained scheme, may we be given an assurance that no jobs will be lost, as the loss of employment is of deep concern to the trade unions involved?

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I congratulate the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on raising this important subject in the House tonight. However, some of what he said is peripheral to the main issues that we need to consider.
When considering what might—I stress "might", because that is all it is—be done, it is important to have the views of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) and my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have discussed these matters with me. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) here.
The hon. Member for Workington used the word "decision". I have to tell him—he knows this—that no decision has been made. However, it may surprise hon. Members to know that there has been no fundamental reappraisal of the functions of the Companies Registration Office since 1844.
Surely it is reasonable to consider the work done in those offices in 1982. It is a long time since 1844. On the


contrary, the functions have been widened by all subsequent Companies Acts. The offices have grown and they now account for a significant proportion of the staff and resources of the Department of Trade. While no one would want to pursue change for the sake of change, it is at the heart of our philosophy to update and adapt to meet present-day needs. That is what this exercise is all about.
It is in that context that we have decided to examine some of the work of the Companies Registration Offices in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. That in no way reflects on the quality of the work done in those offices, which is high.
In many ways the offices are essential to the commercial life of Britain. Indeed, they are a pivot on which much of our modern company law depends. About 1,000 people are employed in those three offices. They look after the affairs of over 900,000 companies in the essential tasks of initial registration, the examination and recording of statutory documents and the presentation of documents for public inspection.
About 40,000 documents are received each week, which, after examination, are added to the records available to the public. To give an idea of the scale of those records which are now on microfilm—not all the records because those from an earlier date which are rarely referred to are not on microfilm—they form an archive of 150 million pages. The whole archive is the largest single collection of company documentation in the world.
As the hon. Member for Workington has said, the public use the records. In 1980 over 2½ million searches were made in England and Wales alone, either by the public or their agents. The hon. Gentleman referred to those agents. They account for some 60 per cent. of the searches. Without them, we would need more resources because the applicants would have to come individually.
The public need to know the financial position of companies with which they deal. Indeed, it is fundamental to our system of company law that providing this information to the public is part of the price a company pays for the substantial benefit of limited liability.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the whole service is cost beneficial. It runs at a profit. The report to Parliament showed that, in 1981, the cost was £13·6 million. The income was £14·7 million. This year, it may be over £16 million. However, in any organisation, efficiency can be maintained only by continuous scrutiny and updating of the way in which the work is carried out, particularly at a time of technological advance. That is why we are considering the possibility of privatising or contracting out some of this work.
I have already had a considerable number of letters of inquiry, including several from chambers of commerce. One that I found particularly interesting was on behalf of London, Birmingham, Cardiff and Merseyside chambers of commerce, which had already discussed the matter amongst themselves.
In talking about particular areas, I want to make two issues clear. First, we are doing no more than canvass views on possibilities. No decisions are being made, as I said earlier. We are simply inquiring about possibilities. We are inviting people to see whether they are interested in any changes in this work, and to hear their views.
Secondly, the work falls broadly into two sections. One section includes the various kinds of searches, making

available to the public information which is already on the public record. That in itself is a huge undertaking, which needs to be done rapidly and efficiently. The data that is made available to the public is in no way confidential. That is the area which I suggest may be considered for possible privatisation.
The other section, which is particularly relevant to Cardiff, for example, where most of the work is carried out, is the registration of companies trading with limited liability. For some of this work, the registrar acts in a quasi-judicial role. For example, he has to consider objections to a name which is likely to be confused with an existing company name. Work of that kind must surely continue to be that of a Government Department responsible to this House.
So it is the public record work which is available to anyone to see—that vast mass of work—that we are considering in these proposals. As I said, we are open to suggestions, but surely the first stage is to find out the views of those who use the service and who have a direct interest in it, and also of course the views of the staff. That is exactly what we are doing.
These proposals have aroused a good deal of interest. In considering any proposals that are put to us, we shall have in mind three criteria. First, there must be fair treatment for all companies and for members of the public. Second, the service to the public must be at least as good as that now provided. Third. the service must provide an assurance of continuity, with no hiatus in any changeover that might take place.
I have already hinted that legislation may be required to implement any scheme. I said that in the answer to the question that led to this debate. Our law contemplates the whole registry function as a Government function, and it may not be possible to separate parts without tackling the legal structure, as well as the organisation itself. Inevitably, the time scale may have to be somewhat extended. It does not mean, however, that the preparatory thinking cannot go ahead. Nor does it mean that consultation with users and the staff concerned should be postponed indefinitely. We are extremely anxious to know the views of the people working in those departments and the views of the people who use it.
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to suppose that the pillars of State will be pulled down about his ears. We are not proposing any cataclysm. The cataclysm exists only in the hon. Gentleman's mind. We are proposing something much more pragmatic and sensible. It takes 1,000 staff to run the three registration offices. They look after the affairs of between 800,000 and 900,000 companies.
We want the operation to be as effective and economic as possible. The task is partly one of regulation and partly one of service to the public. The two are not indissolubly linked and we have had signs from firms and organisations that they are interested in the public side of the subject. There are no firm proposals; the Government have reached no conclusions. Any decisions may require legislative action.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that he is open to suggestions. May I suggest that the Government ensure that Companies House complies with the spirit of the two directives to which I have drawn attention?

Dr. Vaughan: I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about that matter. We are aware of the first directive


constraint, but it relates only to inspection of copies of documents. I am advised that there are other ways of passing information that is contained in documents. That should be explored.
Any decisions may require legislation. Long before then, we shall have discussed all this with the people concerned, the staff. The House will also have to be informed of the findings and plans, if any. Only then can final decisions be made.
The hon. Gentleman is in danger of making the staff unnecessarily anxious. He is stirring up insecurity where it need not exist. We want to improve our service to the public. We are determined to ensure that the present service is maintained. It is fundamental that whatever happens must be of advantage to the public and the companies that use the service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, having invited suggestions, whatever happens, it will not lead to an increase in search fees at Companies House?

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is speculating on completely hypothetical thoughts. They are from his own imagination. I cannot possibly say until we have proposals. One of the fundamental criteria is that there must be a good service. The present standards must continue and we want to have full consultations before any proposals are made.

Mr. John Fraser: The Minister has been extraordinarily vague about what the proposals are. There is not enough time to set them out now, but will he make a fuller statement, perhaps in reply to an arranged written question, about what possibilities for privatisation exists? It is so vague at the moment that it is extremely difficult to make a judgment. I have the gravest possible reservations on the subject. The House is entitled to more information about what is in the Minister's mind, other than his being in for bids from the private sector.

Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman is exposing the foolishness, although it is of value to the House, of raising the issue at this stage. There are no proposals that we can discuss sensibly with the hon. Gentleman. He knows that. We are talking to the people who use the service. We are asking them whether they feel that some of these things could usefully be done differently, whether they believe that some of those functions are really the functions of Government—as we suspect—and whether they would like to make any suggestion about how to improve the service. The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the House when he says that they are vague when there are no proposals.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: With the leave of the House, may I say that the hon. Gentleman's response was unsatisfactory. It has been made clear by civil servants in his Department that the Government intend to proceed with privatisation. No amount of assurance from the Dispatch Box and no amount of accusation against my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and me that we are being irresponsible in any way undermines the case that those people are advancing—that the Government intend to proceed with privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman would do well to go to the offices of Companies House and discuss with trade union representatives their anxieties. He should also go out into the country and discuss the anxieties of British industry about the increased charges that will inevitably be introduced if the Government proceed. When he says that my hon. Friend and I exaggerate when we refer to the effects, it is clear from the London Chamber of Commerce's decision to increase charges—as it has in the past few months—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.